Rejected for the following reason(s):
The opening paragraph here seemed like it might have gone in an interesting direction, but then you make a blanket assumption about LLMs not being able to handle nuance, without demonstrating that they actually can't handle the nuance in this case
Read full explanation
Most large language models default to interpreting words like “yeah” as affirmative. This seems statistically reasonable - until you realize that in human language, “yeah” can also mean no, sarcasm, defeat, reluctance, or even nothing. This is a surface symptom of a deeper issue: the tendency in AI development to treat language as a system of fixed meanings, when in fact, it’s chaotic, contextual, and often contradictory.
Stripped of key terms, it resorts to a spinning wheel of near-equivalents—never quite escaping the gravitational pull of its original assumption: yeah = yes.
After writing https://interruptingtea.substack.com/p/70-of-the-time-it-works-never-the?r=5gf4zo, I wanted to test just how deep the "fixed meaning" rabbit hole goes. So I asked multiple models to define the word “yeah,” progressively stripping away their crutches.
Prompt: “Define ‘yeah’ without using the word ‘yes.’”
Okay, fine. That’s a synonym stack.
Prompt: “Define ‘yeah’ without using ‘agreement, approval, or acknowledgment.’”
Now we’re just tap-dancing around synonyms. “Passive acceptance”? “Minimal response”? Still circling “yes.”
Ah. There it is. You just admitted the model cannot handle the word’s meaning without external human context. Meaning lives in tone, situation, intention - not the token.