That's the other nice thing about ChatGPT - if you say it something and it misunderstands, you can correct it by saying, "no, actually, what I meant is ...". Which, again, is how people generally do that kind of thing outside of programming. The advantage is that you're still remaining on a much higher level of abstraction.

As far as formal languages... GPT doesn't know Lojban well, presumably because of its very small presence in the training data (and dearth of material in general). But it would be interesting to see how training on that specifically would turn out.

Every text interface will eventually include a half baked implementation of a programming language.

> Which, again, is how people generally do that kind of thing outside of programming.

Yes, and with people, that's insufficient if you really need confidence of understanding.

There's a reason that lawyers speak legalese, doctors speak medicalese, etc. These are highly structured languages to minimize confusion.

Even in less technical interactions, when you need to be sure that you understand what someone else is saying, you are taught to rephrase what they said and tell it back to them for confirmation. And there's still a large margin of error even then.

This is why, whenever I have an important conversation at work, I always send an email to the person telling them what I understood from our exchange. In part to check if I understood correctly, but also so that I have a record of the exchange to cover my ass if things go sideways because we didn't understand each other, but thought we did.