I’d like to plug my common recommendation for such problems (which occur to almost ALL words and short phrases that have both common and technical uses): use more words. Papers and posts that are based on these words should specify which implications they depend on, either inline in a paragraph or two, or as a reference to another document which defines and uses the term(s).
For relatively coherent bodies of work (some websites or topics on them, some clusters of papers, possibly some subsets of industries), these definitions may become common enough that the definitions become simply a footnote, with more explanation if it deviates from the standard.
The IETF’s RFC process is a pretty reasonable example of such a system.
This social problem sounds like it has a technical solution! There exist browser addons that let readers publicly annotate text. There could easily exist one that uses an LLM to detect ambiguous phrasings and publish one or more annotated interpretations.
I’d like to plug my common recommendation for such problems (which occur to almost ALL words and short phrases that have both common and technical uses): use more words. Papers and posts that are based on these words should specify which implications they depend on, either inline in a paragraph or two, or as a reference to another document which defines and uses the term(s).
For relatively coherent bodies of work (some websites or topics on them, some clusters of papers, possibly some subsets of industries), these definitions may become common enough that the definitions become simply a footnote, with more explanation if it deviates from the standard.
The IETF’s RFC process is a pretty reasonable example of such a system.
This social problem sounds like it has a technical solution! There exist browser addons that let readers publicly annotate text. There could easily exist one that uses an LLM to detect ambiguous phrasings and publish one or more annotated interpretations.