[throwanem]

The nineteenth century, hell. I have to limit the grammatical complexity I use here, or expect to be fussed at by people asking for summarization.

Or, lately, pasting into ChatGPT, I suppose. There's a thought: I wonder if I could develop a style that's consistent with the rules of English grammar and reads naturally to the fluent, but is also too complex for LLMs to reliably summarize. It'd be a pure gimmick, of course, but it still might be fun to play around with...

[wizzwizz4]

Yes; alas, "fluent" is mu (nothingness). Barriers, barriers are. One may permit it in art, but communication thwarted brings pain. (This has absolutely nothing to do with a squirrel.)

[throwanem]

Granted. But are we engineers or aren't we? If we won't develop the capacity to reckon with complex thoughts, then what can we even claim to offer over a coding model?

(You also suggest my use of "fluent" begs the wrong question. How so? Not every thought is trivial of expression, or we'd need no words but the commonest ten hundred.)

[wizzwizz4]

Say not the straightforward deeply, but the deep straightforwardly.

(NP-hard so.) Two words, answering directly yet explaining nothing. Shibboleths and CAPTCHAs are illusionary protection (and really exclusionary).

[throwanem]

They're poor, early tools. But a complex world can be addressed as if only so simple. Or safely, anyway.

It's not that I don't understand the temptation otherwise. But those are sent to be mastered, I heard.

[wizzwizz4]

Science is not obscurantism. Of their purpose, these tools are early (we hope). Of their ilk, these tools are late, almost unsurpassable, and unenviable.