Reminds me of this:
I think atproto is a good protocol, but god bluesky-the-company is dogshit.
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2025
206 points (97.2% liked)
TechTakes
2212 readers
355 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
https://youtube.com/shorts/aHoUPEhjbN4
The only good take I've seen on this matter.
I think everyone can agree on "this is a slur that we took from StarWars to be derogatory and justify our distaste and opposition to genAI", it's just that some people think that's a bad thing?
Like it appears some people think using the n-word is bad because it's Bad™, not because there's an actual dehumanising effect on a group of people. What's your argument, that we're dehumanising Grok? Ye because it's not a human! "But if it was about the Jews it'd be bad" ye and if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike, what the fuck is your point?
As for the origins I also think it is very important that the word is "clanker" from StarWars, since their droids are not sentient, whereas both "toaster" and "skinjob" are actually used as a hateful term towards sentient beings. BSG goes out of its way to drive in the fact that genociding Cylons would also be bad, actually. The sentience of "skinjobs" is like the whole point of Blade Runner.
Just to play Devil's Advocate, since I am a huge fan of Filoni's Clone Wars series, Clanker feels the most weird because it was created to be used as a slur in the same way the Allied forces had slurs for Germans and Japanese in WW2. I can understand why some people might have moral grounds against using what is ultimately a proxy of real life slurs, especially if they were ever a recipient of that kinda discrimination. Sure, it's a fantasy, and I think from a standpoint of "The Republic is experiencing moral decay" it's interesting for the story, but it was always a lil fucked up that the kids show thought hurling slurs was such a fundamental part of war that they needed to invent a new one. It'd probably be better if we didn't teach children that.
It's also kinda a weird slur to use against AI. The droids are called clankers because they clank, it's like an onomotopeia. LLMs don't clank at all.
They clank when you hit the gpu with a big hammer
(This comment is not really a criticism)
you would not be the first person to look at the etymology of a slur, note that it originally had a different context, and point out that it doesn’t really map 1:1 with its usage.
having not watched the clone wars I can’t comment on specifics with your example.
Anyway, regarding slurs against non-sentient things: “Lemon”, “hunkajunk”, “shitbox” get used for cars, i demand justice for cars!!!
Oh, hey, that's the "Mikhail Gorbachev Caused Skibidi Toilet" guy
I refuse to click that link and instead choose to believe that Mikhail Gorbachev caused Skibidi Toilet unironically.
It's pretty unironic. It's a legit chain of culture and economics that leads from Gorbachev straight to Skibidi Toilet as they evolved and morphed over time from external influences.
It's also the guy who insists "chat" is a fourth person pronoun. Frankly I now go out of my way to avoid his stuff because that take was so ludicrously stupid I no longer trust anything he has to say.
Based solely on the source this man doesn’t seem to deserve any ire. In fact he breaks down the statement “chat is a 4th person pronoun” quite well. What’s stuck in your craw, old fruit?
Well, folks, it deserves ire because it's a ridiculously incorrect statement delivered in an authoritative tone. Chat is a noun and it's used the exact same way as many other nouns. To claim it's grammatically a pronoun you have to either misunderstand what pronouns are or misunderstand how it's being used.
The entire thing boils down to a rhetorical trick: "here are the ways chat is not like other pronouns, so it's reasonable to say it's in a fourth category of pronoun." It entices you to accept the incorrect premise that it's a pronoun and then try to come up with flaws in the inarguable part, which is that this noun doesn't function the same way any pronoun would.
Yeah nah, that’s not what he says at all. In that video, he says: “there is no accepted definition of a fourth person pronoun, here are some concepts that are sometimes referred to as the fourth person, does the modern usage of “chat” fit any of these?” and the answer is: “in some specific ways yes, in other ways no.”
I don’t think he’s the one that started the idea of chat being a fourth person pronoun, I think he’s just discussing the statement and using it as an opportunity to communicate some linguistic concepts, which is cool and good. Also, what’s in your craw, different person?
It's not a pronoun, so if one is pretending to talk about linguistics authoritatively one should know that and clearly state it to your audience so that they're not misled into thinking that calling it a fourth-person pronoun is in any way reasonable.
I've rewatched the video in case I was being uncharitable. Nope. He accepts the premise (direct quote: "that's kind of true"). He then does the exact thing I said, which is argue that it's not acting like a normal pronoun: "the 'fourth person' can also refer to a generic pronoun [...] it doesn't refer to a specific referent, like 'he' or 'she'. [...] if 'chat' is being used to refer to nobody in particular, then arguably it is a new fourth person pronoun." This is complete and utter nonsense packaged as exciting linguistic concepts, which is not at all "cool and good."
(As a bonus bit of wrongness that I didn't catch on the first watch: he says that chat used like "y'all" is third person plural, which is another thing that maybe you shouldn't get wrong in a supposedly educational video.)
well i mean you are being uncharitable. This is a tiktok, not, like, a paper. “Kind of true” doesn’t mean “absolutely true in all cases across space, time, and other universes”. Yes, he did misidentify “y’all” (it is second person plural) but that just changes what the statement should have meant to “chat is used as a second person plural pronoun”.
I think this analysis is about the usage of “chat is this true/real” outside of streams. Like if someone said out loud “chat is this true” to nobody in particular. Or in like, a meme or something.
No, don't be silly. "Chat, is this true?" does not start with a pronoun. Here "chat" is a noun, just like the nouns in "Peter, is this true?" or "Dude, is this true?" or "Friends, Romans, countrymen; is this true?" or "Ladies and gentlemen, The Weeknd."
Addressing someone does not require them to be present or real, so the presence or absence of a literal chat does not somehow transmogrify this noun into a pronoun.
if you used “y’all” to refer to the groups in these examples, “y’all” is a pronoun.
Chat is a metonym (not a pronoun) when you are referring to a group of people in a chatroom, real or imagined. That’s part of the new usage. What’s also part of the new usage is using “chat” but you aren’t thinking about the people you are addressing as part of a chatroom.
Plus we gotta examine the underlying context of how this usage started and how it has evolved. So it starts not as a pronoun when streamers start using it. Then it mutates as people start saying it in real life, outside of a streaming or chatroom context. So let’s say a young child hears someone say “chat, is this true”, and, without looking up what this means or the context, just starts saying it, without knowing what a chatroom is or without a specific audience in mind. I think at that point it becomes a pronoun.
Anyway, none of this is anything to get heated about.
Well, I guess you've chosen the path of not knowing what a pronoun is, since all of the examples you've given use chat as a noun. Good luck with that; I don't think we can have a productive conversation without shared meanings of words, so I'll bow out.
No one's getting particularly heated, we're just saying that someone who spews obvious nonsense in an area of supposed expertise probably shouldn't be trusted about other things.
Well chat, since this guy has bowed out, let me just say: I’ve been working with this description, per wikipedia:
Yeah obviously chat is going to appear as a noun in all those sentences, because it is functioning as a noun. It is sometimes a pronoun. You could just swap out “chat” in any of my guy’s statements with any pronoun and hey now there are no pronouns. We’re free!
And uh yeah flowery is clearly erupting. Just absolutely malding over some tiktoker because he said some stuff and flowery didn’t like the tone of his voice. Mad cos he’s stylin on you
Uh, in its contemporary usage in “chat is this true,” it absolutely is a pronoun