The AI seems rather unnecessarily verbose, and most of its response seems to be word padding around the first order logic that you defined in the paragraph that starts with "It's called Paretoism." It reminds me of corporate speak. There is really no deeper response other than dancing around the definition that "this is bad, that is good" The first order logic that you have defined roughly goes like this: acton = good if and only if for all entity, consequence is good. Action = bad if there exists an entity in which the consequence is bad.

This made me question whether most communication lack substantial substance in the first place. In most conversations, the first order logic you would derive from the statements don't seem to involve many variables or operations. Take the layoff letter for instance, you'd think the CEO is hired to be the CEO because he's good at corporate speak. If corporate speak lack substance and are filled with word padding, then what does it mean to be good at the CEO job? Maybe behind the scene, the CEO actually have to make complex decisions based on a lot of data, and the corporate speak is just a front facing necessity as part of just how things are done.