It's not pointless.

It's acknowledging that this is a place where rigid, universal definitions, that include everything that is X and exclude everything that is not X, are not possible. That human judgement is necessary to determine what is or isn't X.

This doesn't mean that we have no guidelines whatsoever for how to recognize X. We can list qualities that a robot either must have, or should probably have, and anything that definitely doesn't have them probably isn't a robot, and anything that has enough of them probably is a robot.

I just don't think we'll be able to agree (and that's okay). I'll just put my thoughts here, not expecting that you'll meet me anywhere.

Human judgement in itself is not uniform or defined enough for it to be useful, but dispersed and more random than just situational. And yes, universal definitions in general are extremely rare outside of a subset of definitions in hard sciences. The only reasonable thing we can do is agree on a definition in a certain context, ie definitions in a scientific paper or in a conversation. But 'I know it when I see it' or some vague idea of human judgement doesn't even work as a definition within a defined context, and therefore doesn't help us find common ground or make a conversation useful. Which is why I characterize it as a thought-terminating cliché.

In a way, this entire back-and-forth is an example of us 'knowing what a thought-terminating cliché is when we see it' which unsurprisingly, to me, is unhelpful.