My tack for (4) is to commit to using a collection of words ... a la the idea that in order to approach a complex object, you need a limiting process and the collection should provide something like a convex *hull* around the region of meaning space you'd like to name. I want to give a good example, but I can't at the moment.
A bad example was what I tried to use last night to argue that AI generated "music" *is* music in the very same way that you can create (real) music using a synthesizer, including a real time sampler like Hugo Kant or Switch Angel do. The region I intend to name is what goes by the moniker "AI". People just use that name willy nilly, without ever being clear about what they mean. So in the music context, I include e.g. guitar pedals, synthesizers, Searle's Chinese room, declarative music like Strudel, LMMS, etc. These are all sources for names that circumscribe the meaning-region we might call AI. I inevitably have to include LLM, neural networks, deep-*, words, too. But most people don't have a clear idea what those terms mean, either. So they're not as useful for the hygiene you seek in your last paragraph. When the size of the hull decreases, you're most at risk of derelict duty. You have to somehow ensure that your interlocutor is inside the hull. I've posted a paper a couple of times that hinted at such evolution around "theory of mind", "mind reading", etc. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00077-6> I enjoy it when people get together and try to negotiate such things ... as long as they're open to resistance and objection. On 3/19/26 6:46 AM, Prof David West wrote:
While I am happy to concede what I perceive to be glen's main thrust—the term metaphor is generally abused and vastly overused and should be given a rest—I see no need for Nick's response; and, I still have a serious question. If I am confronting something new, something at the "edge of science," and I want to communicate with peers or explain to an informed general public that which I am confronting; there seems to be a need for a label, a word. I see four options and am sure that there are others that have not presented themselves: 1- establish a formal system by which new names are created, e.g., the INN system administered by WHO for naming new drug compounds. (Or, taxonomic names for flora and fauna) 2- name by reference, as Bose-Einstein Condensate, refers to a body of work advanced by those two authors 3- craft a "nonsense" word, e.g., quark, flavor, charm, and strange 4- apply a word that is familiar in one context and apply it to the new context, e.g., "string" theory. The first three options would seem preferable for communication among peers, but only the fourth one seems workable for use with an informed public. What additional constraints or embellishments are advisable/desirable to effectively employ the fourth option without falling into the metaphor-abuse-misuse trap? I think glen offered at least one constraint/embellishment—use appropriate modifiers. Are there instances where the fourth option would be useful, even among peers; at least in exploration stages? If yes, what is needed to prevent the error of continuing to use the "metaphor" beyond that initial period? (Unless, of course, all accumulated evidence confirms the word as literal.)
-- ¡sıɹƎ ןıɐH ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
