I couldn't agree more, these tools are very useful, but interaction is almost just like that with humans, you use a word, they understand it as another. So you have to correct them, to explicitly tell them what you want. They are very good tools when you they and you are talking about the same thing. Indeed just like human conversation.

The instant feedback is better than with humans. Like humans, these models can take one thing to mean another, but because we are still using them for tasks that require instant feedback, we can catch the errors early and correct. It becomes worse if the are to be used on longer lasting tasks. The entire project could be derailed by one misunderstood concept. Just like a human project.

Natural language is a fair interface. But with lots of ambiguity. When I say 'clear', do you mean understandable, easily recognisable or clear like water. I faced that dilemma when I used that word as a design prompt because it can mean things which are opposites of each other. Some languages are so rich they avoid such ambiguities.

A common language can be good. It should not be designed by a committee, it should evolve with these tools naturally.