(By the way, any talk by Rich Hickey is worth watching)
it's true that using a word with multiple meanings gives rise to ambiguity, and avoiding that by choosing a different word is desirable
unfortunately there isn't a better term for 'simple' in the sense of 'not possessed of much detail' or 'composed of very few parts'; saying 'non complex' doesn't really help because 'complex' is often used to mean 'difficult' for the same reason 'simple' is often used to mean 'easy'
except in hucksters' advertising brochures, i don't agree with your implicit assertion that all the polysemic complexity of 'simple' is merely historical, leaving only 'easy' as a live meaning; i think all the meanings i listed above except for 'harmless' have some currency today, even merely in english
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/simple#Adjective lists nine main meanings of which seven are current, though i admit i just added the 'easy' one myself; it wasn't listed previously (i think because of confusion induced by the polysemy of 'complicated')
Look at this comment thread and count all the instances where people are complaining that 'simple' is being used to describe difficult things:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35759449
I'm not the only one who thinks that 'simple' should mean, in technical docs, 'easy'.
But there are some things that are just simple, like a Bankers Box.
we could try defining a new word for specifically this sense of 'simple'. for example, 'fivous', 'blorsy', 'bonatchy', 'jatomurous', or 'wislous'. the problem is that if the word gets adopted, it's likely to undergo the same sense shifts as its synonym 'simple'