The article says it's from first principles and looks pretty deep, and I didn't have the time to exhaustively read it myself, so I used my side project concludia to try and analyze and graph the argument... you can see the argument graph here if you're interested in that kind of thing.

https://concludia.org/step/6f3cbaa2-65d4-3c44-8c1f-23f6ddf2b...

Reading the thread below, I'm always curious where in the argument the various counterpoints would attach. Like if a counterpoint is fatal or just an offshoot. I didn't have the system try and semantically analyze it for flaws/counterpoints yet, I just tried to get it to depict the article's reasoning. Not sure yet how good a job it did.

▲

swed420 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Cool concept.

Have you considered submitting a Show HN post?

▲

tunesmith 9 hours ago | parent [-]

haha. Nervous to. :)

	▲	swed420 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Understandable. For awhile now I've wished for a tool like this, except it would also incorporate previous discussions that match the same/similar node sentiments in order to encourage group dialogue that builds on previous discussions instead of mindlessly re-hashing them ad nauseam like you see on most platforms these days. Also, breaking points down into discrete pieces like you've done is reminiscent of the pol.is platform that vTaiwan leveraged, except theirs was pre-AI with whatever limitations that would have brought.