Both the article and some of the discussions here share a lot of commonalities with doctors taking a medical history. There is a certain skill in guiding the conversation towards useful outputs, while not dictating the exact outputs to a patient who is eager to please with their responses.

E.g., medical history taking protocol always says to start with open ended (albeit structured) questions, and converge towards more closed/specific ones when you're sure you've extracted the broader surface and you now want to close in on a differential diagnosis.

If you start open and go with the flow but then just let the patient talk without any structure or subsequent attempt to converge, there's a risk that the patient might spend 60 minutes taking about their fluffy dog at home, which wastes time, and doesn't get you anywhere nearer the diagnosis. But, if you skip the open questions and go straight to yes/no diagnostic questions, you will definitely miss the fact that they have a dog at home that they're worried about, and that they'll be self-discharging against medical advice in the next hour to go tend to their dog.

So while to an outsider, the conversation might look effortless, in reality the doctor requires considerable skill to be able to strike a balance between open vs closed prompts, as well as the ability to critically sift through the outputs, and decide which outputs are relevant to pursue further and lead to a fruitful direction, versus those that can be safely discarded to remove potentially distracting noise from the conversation (and all while attempting to keep this interaction within a limited number of prompts due to operational time constraints).