[AlchemistCamp]

There are things about human language that are fundamentally at odds with effective communication with a computer (or engineering in general).

One example is ambiguity. Every human language has faculties for ambiguity, which is crucial in many human interactions and relationships. The ability to make implicit requests or suggestions while maintaining plausible deniability is valuable, even in situations that are non-adversarial.

In contrast, when communicating with an OS or engineering a mechanical device, ambiguity is a negative and it's crucial to use language that is deterministic.

There is a very real degree to which people are only capable of thinking clearly about complex systems to the degree they are comfortable with tools such as mathematics and programming that can be used to unambiguously describe them.

[ssivark]

> In contrast, when communicating with an OS or engineering a mechanical device, ambiguity is a negative and it's crucial to use language that is deterministic.

Very much a historical artifact. Modern systems (LLMs, for example) can in principle handle ambiguous inputs.

[AlchemistCamp]

Is ambiguity ever desirable when communicating with them?

[carbotaniuman]

I would argue no - the entire concept of prompt engineering exists for this reason.