Well, then I'd say ERROR is a very bad name. Because it's a well defined word with a precise meaning. If you tell somebody "an error happened here" they will have no trouble understanding it, and what they understand won't be "we need to wake up somebody to deal with this NOW!".
Those names are proof that your logging structure was created for debugging, not for production.
I'm afraid this is an entirely fantastical objection. I don't believe we have ever had the confusion you describe, and this structure was created entirely for production use.
The name is irrelevant. The issue being addressed is a poor assertion. Log levels are not meaningless in a standardized system. It's trivial to map a set of levels to a useful set of conditions. Like any monitoring (or logging), the system has to be well-regulated and maintained to be useful. In good faith, log levels are useful.
Those names are proof that your logging structure was created for debugging, not for production.