Things like seam, fold, and load-bearing are useful concepts, they are everywhere, and they are more descriptive and more concise than alternatives. Over-usage can definitely be irritating (e.g. these should NOT appear in documentation) but they are almost unavoidable for humans engaged in code review or colab on complex stuff.

I don't want to use more words or letters than "seam" to actually pinpoint boundary conditions and the mechanical details of joinery when the context is understood by all. Too much effort for people! Easy for robots though.. so why are they abbreviating, and why would we want to allow it? A phrase like that permits a human who wants to educate a human to do so quickly with minimal time/effort. But it allows a robot a chance to not mention a filename, function-name, or to not reinforce/clarify it's own understanding or to state specific intentions.

It's bad for human-to-human comms if we just accept "ok, all technical terms are slop now, we have rephrase everything". Now YOU must cite details and sources, and the robot doesn't? Fuck that noise. Seam and fold are fine! Humans can be lazy! Robots should do the real work of explaining themselves without hiding behind tactical ambiguities.

I tend to agree. Claude's language doesn't bother me that much, because even the lamest cliches are load-bearing to an extent (so to speak.) But some of the examples I've seen others post are well worth complaining about.