[radarsat1]

The article makes me wonder if the author is aware of the technical meaning of "deep" in the context of the term "deep learning." Not that I disagree with the article, these things tend to take on a life of their own and that's just how it goes with language and culture.. but at least in the case of machine learning "deep" is not just an arbitrary terminology to sound fancy, but refers to a series of breakthroughs allowing incredible training performance on multi-layered neural networks; where "deep" specifically contrasts these results with prior state of the art in 3-layered networks. And presumably this use of the term is at the source of several of these other "hyped" uses of it, perhaps with the exception of "deep state", so it's frustrating to see it thrown into the same basket.

[_Schizotypy]

The word "deep" came way before deep learning, and can mean different things in different contexts

[radarsat1]

But one of the contexts provided in the article is "deep learning", that is what I am responding to. My point being that he lumps "deep" in as a hyped up term, trying to make connections across "different things in different contexts" as you say, ignoring the fact that it has a technical meaning.