This is an incomplete sentence. The correct phrase would be:

"I understand the topics to which the words are referring"

>The sentences seem like garbage that almost makes sense, but in the end doesn't.

This is a Freudian slip where you are actually talking about your own sentences. Since when does garbage make sense?

I hazard a guess that you are heavily invested in recycling content!

>Presumably phrases or sentence fragments written by real humans but strung together in a nonsense way.

This is another sentence fragment which is solely a predicate, lacking a subject. There is only one language in the world where that is valid grammar; and it is also the only one in which: being able to do the work of several humans- is an insult rather than a compliment.

A moronic RUSE uses derogatives subjectively and assumes everyone else must agree.

>It's clever though and sophisticated enough to make you doubt yourself for a moment.

If you could veritably speculate on what type of computation was ongoing, then you too could be clever and sophisticated.

Instead, you are simply being a dull sophist.

>I think it's both human and machine working together.

Correct! I am indeed using a computer, and so are you.

>This comment is too on topic to be random: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058574 I'm almost enjoying it as a kind of puzzle.

If this is some kind of algorithmic puzzle, then I am technically a 'wizard'; and you can only progress by asking questions to inform your own ignorance.

>Pretty sure it's some kind of performance art or trolling, so I've flagged it.

Another grammatical error! If you cannot think of a question to ask, or a related topic to discuss, then you are most likely the troll (or performance artist).

>I'd argue that it's indecipherably dense and not appropriate for HN.

I can now argue that in fact that you are indecipherably dense and HN is not appropriate for VC funding.