Literal Interpretation

Taking metaphorical or abstract points literally to create gotcha moments, avoiding engagement with the actual substance.

• "What compiler accepts cash as input?"
• "Can you show me where code has feelings?"
• "I've never seen a computer 'think' about anything."
• "Architecture doesn't have blueprints for software."

Why It's Unproductive

Treats figurative language as if it were meant literally, creating a false contradiction to sound clever. Everyone knows metaphors aren't precise technical descriptions - that's not the point of using them. This deflects from the actual idea being communicated (like how AI changes workflows or what makes good software design) to play word games about the metaphor itself.

The Better Move

• "The economic model is interesting. Though I wonder if 'cash to code' will be as reliable as traditional compilation."
• "Fair point about the workflow transformation. The key question is whether the quality is consistent enough to skip human review."
• "True, though the 'compiler' metaphor breaks down when reliability and determinism matter."
• "I get the metaphor. My concern is whether the abstraction level is actually helpful or just obscures complexity."

Why It's Better

Engages with the actual idea while acknowledging the metaphor. You can push back on whether the metaphor is helpful or apt without pretending you don't understand what they meant.

Example

OP: "A compiler that can turn cash into improved code without round-tripping a human is very cool."

Antipattern reply: "What compiler accepts cash as input?"

Better: "The economic model is interesting. The key question is whether it's reliable enough to skip human review in the loop."