> Natural language is not sufficient to give precise instructions

On consideration, this is the core of our disagreement and it is probably one that we will not see past.

I have to assume that you see human/computer interactions as master-slave relations. You are the master providing instructions and the computer is a slave that MUST do precisely what you instruct it to do. I would wager that you feel frustrated when you deal with other people who choose to do things in a way that is different than how you want them to be done.

One thing I was taught when I became a manager was that I should focus on outcomes. I should explain to people what the result I wanted was, rather than to be really picky about the implementation. I found that sometimes people could realize my desired outcomes in a way that was better than I would have done it. It was enlightening.

There is an idiom in English, about winning the battle but losing the war. It is when a person becomes so obsessed with controlling tiny details that they lose sight of the overall goal.

I doubt we will see eye-to-eye on this, but I am arguing that we will have better outcomes if we obsess less about the details of how computers implement our goals and we spend more time focusing on the goals we want to achieve.

I couldn't even tell you who is liable right now for bugs that impact human's negatively. Can you? If I was an IC at an airplane manufacturer and a bug I wrote caused an airplane crash - who is legally responsible? Is it me? The QA team? The management team? Some 3rd party auditor? Some insurance underwriter? I have a strong suspicion it is very complicated as it is without considering LLMs.

What I can tell you is that the last time I checked: laws are written in natural language, they are argued for/against and interpreted in natural language. I'm pretty confident that there is applicable precedent and the court system is well equipped to deal with autonomous systems already.