>I suspect that metaphors are the tools of cargo cults while analogies are the tools used by those that actually understand a system in order to convey it to those that do not.
Are the metaphors actual tools, or more like metaphorical tools?
How is your concern different than what they are calling political security (~1/3 of the paper)?
>Political security. The use of AI to automate tasks involved in
surveillance (e.g. analysing mass-collected data), persuasion
(e.g. creating targeted propaganda), and deception (e.g.
manipulating videos) may expand threats associated with
privacy invasion and social manipulation. We also expect novel
attacks that take advantage of an improved capacity to analyse
human behaviors, moods, and beliefs on the basis of available
data. These concerns are most significant in the context of
authoritarian states, but may also undermine the ability of
democracies to sustain truthful public debates.
I think the major difference is this notation has the count of loose wires corresponding to dimension, and Penrose notation has the count of loose wires corresponding to tensor valence.
Here, a diagram with 1L and 2R wires corresponds to a 2d-vector, in Penrose's notation it would correspond to a (1,2) tensor that takes kd-vectors to kXk matrices.
But... they certainly have a similar feel. I wonder if you could build up the Penrose notation out of this.
> If I write a theory and take over an existing word in everyday use, it seems a bit much to accuse every one else of colloquialism when they use an existing but less strict definition?
It does, but engineering is a technical profession and it's practitioners are likely familiar with the mathematical concept.
I've read about applications of chaos theory in system design, and I expected 'Principals of Chaos Engineering' to be about that topic.