[nopinsight]

Here is the key part of my argument: in sufficient detail such that another master or a robot could create David, (implying) in the exact same style as the masterpiece, without seeing or touching the artifact itself (because that would not be just verbal language anymore).

[cableshaft]

Isn't that what CNC machines do? Or even 3D modeling software, which then gets 3D printed? Is that not creating things, potentially as complicated as David, using language? I know CNC machines use G-Code.

I think the only limiting factor we have on that is we don't yet have a robot that can chisel marble to create a carbon copy of such sculptures, but we can otherwise do it with other materials.

[nopinsight]

In the context of the original article in which this whole discussion takes place, I assume we are talking about verbal, natural language. Specifying every little detail would make my comments sound like legalese.

To my understanding, this is not a type of natural language the paper discusses:

  N10 G21            ; Set units to millimeters
  N20 G17            ; Select XY plane
  N30 G90            ; Absolute positioning
  N40 G00 Z5.0       ; Raise Z axis to 5.0 mm

[cableshaft]

I don't expect a human could recreate David with that, no. But you also included robot in your post, and a robot can use that language to recreate David. If you hadn't specified robot, then sure.

[Jensson]

I doubt Michelangelo could write such a spec, but he could make David. The ability to communicate is not the same thing as the ability to do, they are separate, as people who can write such a spec probably can't make it by themselves either.