Problem: If I go to a chapter, e.g. https://hpmor.com/chapter/63 , and then I use the dropdown menu from the top to select another chapter, it takes me to e.g. https://hpmor.com/go.php?chapter=36 , which is a "Page not found" page.
I guess I would summarize by saying:
Hmm, I assumed “ansii art” was a typo on “ASCII art”, but apparently it’s instead a typo on “ANSI art”, and GPT knows about it—I guess it knows enough about nfo files (or the context of discussing such files) to pick the right correction.
Perhaps one of these strategies?
If I were implementing this, I would first look at a bunch of samples of comment chains matching the above queries, to see how well theory matches reality.
If you can have one thought, than another thought, and the link between the two is only 90% correct, not 99.9% correct...
Then, you don't know how to think.
You can't build a computer if each calculation it does is only 90% correct. If you are doing reasoning in sequential steps, each step better be 100% correct, or very, very close to that. Otherwise, after even a 100 reasoning steps (or even 10 steps), the answer you get will be nowhere near the correct answer.
This is a nice thing to think about. I'm sure you're aware of it, and some of this will overlap with what you say, but here are the strategies that come to mind, which I have noticed myself following and sometimes make a point of following, when I think I need to:
There is now a South Park episode titled "Japanese Toilet", which depicts them as being insanely good (obviously exaggerated) (I haven't seen more than the clip). I expect this will cause some fraction of viewers to become curious and look into the reality, and some fraction of those to try out something with a bidet.
I definitely agree that we should start shifting to a norm that focuses on punishing bad actions, rather than trying to infer their mental state.
Do you have limitations to this in mind? Consider the political issue of abortion. One side thinks the other is murdering babies; the other side thinks the first is violating women's rightful ownership of their own bodies. Each side thinks the other is doing something monstrous. If that's all you need to justify punishment, then that seems to mean both sides should fight a civil war.
("National politics? I was talking about..." The one example the OP gives is SBF, and other language alludes to sex predators and reputation launderers, and the explicit specifiers in the first few paragraphs are "harmful people" and "bad behavior"; it's such a wide range that it seems hard to declare anything offtopic.)
Hmm. I would guess that, if someone is using a wrong frame (let's say it depends on assumptions that are demonstrably false), and you have a better frame in mind, there are still better ways and worse ways to go about communicating this and going from the one to the other. Like, explicitly saying "It looks like you're assuming X, which is wrong because ..." seems like the most educational and intellectually legible approach, probably best in a good-faith discussion with an intelligent counterpart; whereas e.g. just saying new stuff from a different set of assumptions that doesn't directly engage with what they've said—but initially looks like it does, and takes long enough / goes through enough distracting stuff before it reaches a mismatch that they've forgotten that they'd said something different—is potentially bad.
Now, er, the original post says it uses "frame control" to mean the non-explicit, tricky approach. It mentions "Trying to demonstrate, through reason and facts, how their box is better", and says "These are all attempts to control your frame, but none of these is what I mean by frame control", and "No; frame control is the “man doesn’t announce his presence, he just stalks you silently” of the communication world."
This is unfortunate, because the bare phrase "frame control" will inevitably be interpreted as "actions that control the frame" without further qualifiers (I'd forgotten that the post had the above definition). Something like "silent frame control", "frame manipulation", or "frame fuckery" would probably fit better.