I think that master/slave correctly describes the relationship between constructs, and should remain unchanged. It is adequately separated from any sort of human relationship, and doesn't in any way glorify human slavery; in fact it actively separates the machine relationships from human ones. We can look at the relationships between these constructs, and see how far removed it is from any relationship in modern society.
But it's not the only way to describe it. There are other ways to describe it without using contentious terms.
The master/slave term is an accurate metaphor for the technology, and we can infer that no racial discrimination is intended by its usage.
We have to assume people who are performing intelligent work are capable of nuance and discretion.
And for people working on serious problems in science and technology, in order for them to progress effectively, they need to be insulated from silly little identity politics intrusions like this.
Which is why myself and many others in the industry would not see a problem using different terms. I know I don't need to explain this to you, but we're in a constantly evolving industry subject to rapid change. It's something we're all accustom to so one more minor change, especially one that's inconsequential to the industry as a whole but significant to the people it affects, shouldn't be a point of contention. Our industry has always been focused on the future and part of that innovation is being able to let go of our fleeting past and keep moving forward.
Personally, the terms neither benefit me nor hurt me, so I just defer to people with strong feelings. If it hurts them, fine call it something else.