[eli_gottlieb]

>They are not responsible for that, and honestly, nobody is. Recently, I read the description of some machine learning algorithm that was filled with buzzwords and dubious physics analogies to a point that I thought it was a clever Sokal, but after some reading all of it was genuine. That's just how jargon works, you assume that the one who using it understands what he is saying, as long as he's using it seemingly properly, but you can't know unless you have a sufficiently good grasp of the semantics.

I don't think machine learning was a good place to pick an example from. A lot of so-called explanations of ML algorithms basically are Sokal hoaxes, and the fact is that the writer doesn't understand what the algorithm does and how.