[antonvs]

> it is fundamentally unsuited for the task.

Very deepity. But you’ve apparently misunderstood mathematical notation - it’s just a shorthand, nothing stops one from expressing the same concepts in natural language.

> Furthermore, natural language specifications are, at best, wishful thinking.

More deepitism. There are plenty of counterexample to this, your claim only serves to suggest that you have no experience with software development.

> Feed this into a stochastic parrot

To might want to look for terminology in papers that were published after GPT 3.5 was released, it’ll make you sound less like an Amish person objecting to the “English”. Then again you used “clanker” in another comment, so I don’t hold out much hope.

[framel]

Very deepity?!? You lack basic grammar skills, yet here you are lecturing me about how mathematical notation is just syntactic sugar over natural language. That’s exactly the point: we already have a construct for telling computers what to do. We don’t need to use something subpar to express our intent.

[msla]

> deepity

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deepity

> A superficial equivocation which only seems to be profound.

[antonvs]

> You lack basic grammar skills

You lack basic knowledge of the field you're ineptly trying to criticize. "Deepity" was coined by the Harvard philosophy professor Daniel Dennett, and was specifically intended to address the sort of empty nonsense you were spewing in your previous comment. Take this as a shot across the bow and go study before you continue vomiting your uninformed opinions everywhere.

[framel]

Dumb illiterate cunt, "very deepity" is not valid English, go back to school. You can't put very before deepity!