Yes we are in agreement! There is no opposition, and if at all there is any disagreement it is at most one of focus and emphasis, not anything substantive. Cons

Yes we are in agreement! There is no opposition, and if at all there is any disagreement it is at most one of focus and emphasis, not anything substantive. Consider the chain: <Fun fact: X, imperfectly stated> → <NASA engineer says Sanskrit can be used for knowledge representation> → <NASA endorses Sanskrit for AI> → <Sanskrit is good for AI> → <Sanskrit is the best language for computers> → <claims of superiority> → <Y: the thing you might be actually worried about>. In any such chain X→…→Y, I think it's possible that worry about Y can hinder ability to appreciate X on its own terms as an intellectual delight, so it requires some conscious mental effort of stepping back or “depoliticization”, to do so. Then, for “calling out abuse” (as you said, they're not complementary), one again has a choice of form. A shooting-down approach, especially one where one debunks something actually further ahead in the chain, has its advantages — it is strong, and plays well to third parties and to those already on one's side. But it can be polarizing, and poor at convincing the person who was saying X. It seems preferable to me to start by agreeing with X (in this case X too was imperfectly stated so actually one would have to reach back and agree with the correct W), then add a cautionary note about the next steps in the chain that are not true. But this is ultimately a matter of preference no doubt. After all, those who react strongly seem to be more successful in most outcomes other than convincing the person they're reacting to. :-) Anyway I guess it is a bit pointless and too meta to be talking about talking, so I'll end here; will just for concreteness repeat the correct (AFAIK) version of the “fun fact”: there existed/exists an interesting and sophisticated special-purpose usage of (a subset of) Sanskrit that was used to avoid (reduce?) the ambiguity that is common all natural languages, and Sanskrit in particular, and this was (roughly) pointed out in a paper in the 80s that caught some interest because of the author's employer (NASA) and publication venue (AI Magazine), though there are much better sources, and though it is not actually any more useful for AI than the typical approaches used (even at that time) for knowledge-representation.