This makes me wonder if there's a class of software that doesn't exist yet. Like, a structured reasoning assistant? We have all these assistants for grammar and

This makes me wonder if there's a class of software that doesn't exist yet. Like, a structured reasoning assistant? We have all these assistants for grammar and spelling but nothing for the actual thinking bit. We could go a lot further than auto-converting top-posts to inline. I'm imagining a cognitive prosthesis that would help you understand the structure and dependencies of someone's argument and would give you a "wavy red line" or list of points if what you're saying is irrelevant, incoherent or doesn't address the actual arguments being made. A big thing I value about inline posters is that I know they read the whole message. Doing the work of summarising and maintaining context signals to me that what they have to say might be worth reading, even if I disagree. It also signals they adhere to conventions around reasoning and discourse. Would providing computer tools for argument defeat the purpose though? Would it just help people pump out simulacra of thoughtful responses? Creating a tool to be weaponised by pedants and "motivated reasoners"? It might actually make it _harder_ to find signal in the noise. I feel like most people would start at the conclusion first, then use the tools to make the strongest version of their argument. A kind of "google maps for thinking" where the destination is already punched in. The computer would just be used to determine the most acceptable route to get there. In a perfect world, tools for thinking would help everyone undertand the territory better rather than being something that just helps your tanks drive over it :/