For example, the article says "Natural language is the interface of last resort."
But, is that actually true? Isn't the AI boom happening because N/L is truly available as an interface?
Anyway, please keep writing and asking tough questions.
The AI boom is happening because people what to believe that natural language is precise. Not because it’s actually an effective way to interface with everything.
I wonder why he decided to express this thought in natural language though. Should have tried formalising it.
> It's fully general, but it's also furiously ambiguous. Humans fall back to natural language when no other more precise way to describe what we want is available to us, either because it doesn't exist or we don't know it comfortably. We draw diagrams and blueprints and write math equations for a reason!
But I wouldn't say that metaphors, heuristics, slight ambiguities, subtexts, are unnecessary and undesirable elements of language; I think they are probably productive, ans that they reflect what intelligence is and how it works. If you read Terrence Tao's chat with ChatGPT to understand the counterexample to the Jacobian Conjecture, it's a lot of formal math interspersed with dubitative formulas, suggestions, vague intuitions, mental images, imprecise quantifiers, etc., from both sides. Natural language does real work, it's not just a fallback.