[euroderf]

> Natural language is so ambiguous.

As a former tech comms guy I will say:

Natural language can be bent into arbitrary precision. Write something, then enter a read-rewrite-reread loop as the devil's advocate (this is key) until it stops being ambiguous or having multiple conceivable interpretations.

Yes with English this process can be a pain in the butt, until you get the hang of it.

[stavros]

The problem is that it's very hard to anticipate all possible edge cases. Programming languages force you to do a lot of that work up front, English doesn't. It's the difference between writing Javascript and writing Typescript, except orders of magnitude worse.

[didroe]

The problem is, what's ambiguous or precise is subjective. Your devil's advocate needs to reflect all of the possible readers, and that isn't possible.

There's a good reason we use jargon in professions, or more constrained and less ambiguous languages for maths/coding

[jgalt212]

Legalese? It can be both precise and ambiguous, depending on both its construction and the reader's aptitude and comprehension.

[n4pw01f]

This process can be handled by a “turn server”

Was a pain to set up, but you can score the context completion and then if the score is under 98% or something, “ask” clarifying questions of the requesting agent or person or system

[euroderf]

Kagi and Perplexity are drawing a blank on "turn server".

[n4pw01f]

I guess we just call them turn servers but technically it’s a “Stateful Dialogue Manager”

[thfuran]

You’re never going to make a nontrivial statement in English that you couldn’t find two people who wouldn’t perfectly agree on its meaning. Or probably even a trivial one. Sure, at some point you can say “no, you’re clearly misinterpreting what I’ve said” or “you’re inferring something that wasn’t implied”, but English doesn’t have a formal spec or a reference implementation, so that’s kind of meaningless.