Clanker: A Word for the Machine(lucumr.pocoo.org)
lucumr.pocoo.org
Clanker: A Word for the Machine
https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2026/5/26/clankers/
7 comments
> Divisive language just sounds ugly to me because it aims to divide.
The issue we have with LLMs is that people are starting to treat their conversations with these things as a substitute to human interactions. Division very much is the point because they are not humans. There is a question to me about what the approach is but not being precise about their nature does not seem wise to me.
Dogs are not inanimate objects and even legally they carry a lot of rights. None of this should apply to an LLM.
> Well, no, not really. You can't use a word that sounds like a slur, and usually is meant to be a slur and complain that it's getting polluted.
What makes something into a slur is when people are perceiving it as such. So yes, it's the usage of the term that is what makes it that. Would clicker be a slur? Or slacker? Or hummer and dinger? Where is the line. I'm assuming the line emerges from what society does with a word.
> Then don't! There are degrees between "the agent decided" and "clanker"
But seemingly that is only something that emerges from the discourse. You seem to draw a line somewhere that is different from where I would have drawn it. Impossible to figure out a priori.
The issue we have with LLMs is that people are starting to treat their conversations with these things as a substitute to human interactions. Division very much is the point because they are not humans. There is a question to me about what the approach is but not being precise about their nature does not seem wise to me.
Dogs are not inanimate objects and even legally they carry a lot of rights. None of this should apply to an LLM.
> Well, no, not really. You can't use a word that sounds like a slur, and usually is meant to be a slur and complain that it's getting polluted.
What makes something into a slur is when people are perceiving it as such. So yes, it's the usage of the term that is what makes it that. Would clicker be a slur? Or slacker? Or hummer and dinger? Where is the line. I'm assuming the line emerges from what society does with a word.
> Then don't! There are degrees between "the agent decided" and "clanker"
But seemingly that is only something that emerges from the discourse. You seem to draw a line somewhere that is different from where I would have drawn it. Impossible to figure out a priori.
> Division very much is the point because they are not humans.
I'm not so worried about dividing humans and LLMs as dividing humans from each other. Sure, LLMs are not humans, and that's a valid distinction, but the word "clanker" is used by humans, and there's already a divide between humans who think it's OK to use a slur if it's directed towards a group they don't like (I don't mean you here) and people who don't.
> Dogs are not inanimate objects and even legally they carry a lot of rights.
I'd think less of someone who was gratuitously swearing at a dog not because they hurt the dog's feelings, but because they were being gratuitously negative.
> I'm assuming the line emerges from what society does with a word.
It does, and the use of "clanker" I've seen was generally meant as a slur. It's not a neutral word in any context I've seen it in.
> You seem to draw a line somewhere that is different from where I would have drawn it.
True, but I also think that "clanker" is fairly far towards one end of the spectrum, not really near the middle.
I'm not so worried about dividing humans and LLMs as dividing humans from each other. Sure, LLMs are not humans, and that's a valid distinction, but the word "clanker" is used by humans, and there's already a divide between humans who think it's OK to use a slur if it's directed towards a group they don't like (I don't mean you here) and people who don't.
> Dogs are not inanimate objects and even legally they carry a lot of rights.
I'd think less of someone who was gratuitously swearing at a dog not because they hurt the dog's feelings, but because they were being gratuitously negative.
> I'm assuming the line emerges from what society does with a word.
It does, and the use of "clanker" I've seen was generally meant as a slur. It's not a neutral word in any context I've seen it in.
> You seem to draw a line somewhere that is different from where I would have drawn it.
True, but I also think that "clanker" is fairly far towards one end of the spectrum, not really near the middle.
> It does, and the use of "clanker" I've seen was generally meant as a slur. It's not a neutral word in any context I've seen it in.
I can tell you that within the agentic coding community plenty of people are using it as a way to refer to coding agents by their users. That's a pretty neutral use.
> True, but I also think that "clanker" is fairly far towards one end of the spectrum, not really near the middle.
Until I saw the comments on the most recent hackernews discussion on it I would never have made that guess.
I can tell you that within the agentic coding community plenty of people are using it as a way to refer to coding agents by their users. That's a pretty neutral use.
> True, but I also think that "clanker" is fairly far towards one end of the spectrum, not really near the middle.
Until I saw the comments on the most recent hackernews discussion on it I would never have made that guess.
That's odd, even the Wikipedia entry (from Star Wars) begins with "is a derogatory term":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanker
That's where it originates, and (I assume) it was chosen precisely because it's derogatory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanker
That's where it originates, and (I assume) it was chosen precisely because it's derogatory.
But also if you go to the talk page you can see discussions that lead to the change of the description of that page from "slur" to "derogatory term". That discussion was, from what I can tell, about the fact that slurs are for human targets and not machines. A lot of things are derogatory, particularly when applied to tools, and we would not bat an eye in the discussion. Something makes (at least some) people feel different about clanker.
I like your explanation of why "agent" is entirely the wrong term to use. But "clanker"? It has such an ugly sound to it. What's wrong with plain old bot?
> Why Not Agent?
I agree, "agent" gives them agency. "Clanker" just sounds like "trashheap" to me, though, a clearly pejorative term. You could go with "harness", "AI", "LLM", "bot", or any of a host of neutral words. No need to reach for something that sounds ugly.
> The Machine Has No Feelings
Yes, you can't offend a machine, but divisive rhetoric is meant to do just that: Divide. I don't want to see people split into "clanker-lovers" and "clanker-haters". Divisive language just sounds ugly to me because it aims to divide.
As a friend put it, if someone were talking to a dog, calmly calling it various pejorative names, even if the dog's feelings weren't hurt, I'd still think less of the person for doing that.
> Racism Is About Humans
Yes, and there's plenty of scope for humans to divide themselves in identity-politics camps based on their position towards AI. More identity politics isn't something I want to see, so I prefer to use neutral words so the discussion gets elevated, when possible.
> AI Is Unpopular
Yes, and people are right to not like AI, for various reasons. It's one thing to not like something, and a completely different thing to call it a word that's meant to be a put-down that shuts down thought.
> The Word Is Getting Polluted
Well, no, not really. You can't use a word that sounds like a slur, and usually is meant to be a slur and complain that it's getting polluted. If anything, you're the minority user here, and the "polluted" meaning was the intended one.
> This is why giving these systems softer, more human language worries me.
Then don't! There are degrees between "the agent decided" and "clanker", even though I will point out here that we were fine saying "the autopilot leveled the plane" or "the bank's KYC software deemed the user suspicious".