While that is an excellent book, I would say that it focuses on type theory from a somewhat more theoretical perspective than (say) TAPL which is more on type _systems_ from a programming languages perspective. Both are great reads though.
> By forcing you to make a decision without context.
Not the OP, but what would be the point to that? In any practical scenario there is always context, isnt it? I guess I don't quite get what we are trying to measure here.
> Not everybody has a body of beliefs that guides him.
Not the OP, but this got me curious. How does one reason about things if you have no axioms (i.e. "body of beliefs")? Are you using some non-axiomatic systems of reasoning or just saying that some people don't reason at all ?
I think I am confused by your comment in the context of Larry Sanger: are you suggesting that rationalwiki is incorrect and that Larry did not say any of the things quoted?
Given that the "First Amendment" is purely a US thing, and applies only to the Government curbing speech, I am not sure how much of this really applies anywhere else and in any other context?
> This is a distinctly Western perspective: that intent matters
I am kind of curious about the perspective here. Is the argument that "eastern" (I assume, as opposed to "western") perspectives do not consider intent in evaluating actions?
> because it is the only document/philosophy in history that has determined the limits the people place on government rather than government determining the limits on the people
Very curious what bytecode manipulation libraries you would recommend. I am aware of ASM [1], which was pleasant, but written in Java itself, I was wondering about something in (say) C, so that it can be used from other languages more easily.
Yes indeed! There are so many disturbing bits in that article, but somehow in these comments it is getting conflated with a sort of character-building-by-hard-work and pulling-oneself-up-by-the-bootstrap narrative, which is mostly orthogonal to much of the stuff in the article.
> In most subjects I have found ChatGPT to be fairly reliable.
Not the OP, but I am very curious what subjects you have experimented with and whether you used any special prompt techniques.
My experience has been quite on the contrary: on the few subjects I have some understanding of, ChatGPT appears to do fine for basic questions and attempts to summarize concepts at a high-level, but any attempt at drilling in to specifics seem to cause it to hallucinate quite a bit, particularly with regards to concrete facts or citations or anything of that sort.