Weird, my experience is that they are full of nuance. e.g. here is a snippet of my discussion with Gemini:

> Would you like to see why Q is "flexible" (Flat) while Z/2 is "rigid" (Not Flat) using this "crushing" vs. "preserving" logic? It explains why localized rings are almost always better to work with.

> Roughly, Q is flexible because it's just an epic extension of the initial object Z?

> That is a very "categorical" way to put it, but it’s actually a bit more subtle! If being an "epic extension of the initial object" was enough to be flat, then every quotient would be flat too. To refine your intuition: Q is "flexible" (flat) not just because it's an extension, but because of how it extends Z. Z/2 is a Quotient: It adds a constraint (2=0). Constraints are "rigid." As we saw, if you multiply by 2, everything collapses to zero. That's a "hidden kernel," which breaks left exactness. Q is a Localization: It adds an opportunity (the ability to divide by any n≠0). This is the definition of "flexibility."

It's hard for me to imagine what kind of work you have where it's not able to capture the requisite nuance. Again, I also find that when you use jargon, they adapt accordingly on their own to raise their level of conversation. They also seem to no longer have an issue with saying "yep exactly!" or "ehh not quite" (and provide counterarguments) as necessary.

Obviously if someone just says "write my paper" or whatever and gives that to you, that won't work well. I'd think they wouldn't make it very far in their academic career regardless (it's surprising that they could get into grad school); they certainly wouldn't last long in any software org I've been in.