Have you just reinvented programming languages and reinforced the author's point?

Setting aside the problem of training, why bother prompting if you’re going to specify things so tightly that it resembles code?

an hour ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

mike_hearn 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Programming languages admit only unambiguous text. What he's proposing is more like EARS, Gherkin or Planguage.

	▲	rdevilla 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not necessarily. I was intending it as a thought experiment illustrating why some kind of formal language (whether that mean technical jargon, unambiguous syntax, unambiguous semantics, conlangs, specification languages, or some combination thereof) will eventually arise from natural language - as it has countless times in the past, within mathematics (as referenced in TFA) and elsewhere. Gherkin is kind of nice though.

rdevilla 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]