# The Language Labyrinth: Constructive Critique on the Terminology Used in the AI Discourse

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10292 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.10292/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 0 of its 37 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Jul 2023.

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- ["I Am the One and Only, Your Cyber BFF": Understanding the Impact of GenAI Requires Understanding the Impact of Anthropomorphic AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.08526/) (2024)
- [Rigor in AI: Doing Rigorous AI Work Requires a Broader, Responsible AI-Informed Conception of Rigor](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.14652/) (2025)
- [How Large Language Models Are Changing MOOC Essay Answers: A Comparison of Pre- and Post-LLM Responses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13038/) (2025)
- [AI Narrative Breakdown. A Critical Assessment of Power and Promise](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.22255/) (2026)
- [Strategic Polysemy in AI Discourse: A Philosophical Analysis of Language, Hype, and Power](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.21043/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In the interdisciplinary field of artificial intelligence (AI) the problem of clear terminology is especially momentous. This paper claims, that AI debates are still characterised by a lack of critical distance to metaphors like 'training', 'learning' or 'deciding'. As consequence, reflections regarding responsibility or potential use-cases are greatly distorted. Yet, if relevant decision-makers are convinced that AI can develop an 'understanding' or properly 'interpret' issues, its regular use for sensitive tasks like deciding about social benefits or judging court cases looms. The chapter argues its claim by analysing central notions of the AI debate and tries to contribute by proposing more fitting terminology and hereby enabling more fruitful debates. It is a conceptual work at the intersection of critical computer science and philosophy of language.