Slavery is one subject that it's highly likely ChatGPT is specifically programmed to handle differently for political reasons. How did you get around this problem?

If they are, that link doesn't show it. First of all, it doesn't show Japanese prices at all. Second, even though it claims to "reflect restaurants of all sizes and segments", it doesn't, because a burger at McDonald's or Wendy's is not $16 and they obviously excluded fast food restaurants. How much is a burger in Japan if you exclude fast food?

Yet, that’s not what happened; inflation has been higher in the US. In Japan, you can get a good bowl of ramen for $6. In an American city, today, including tax and tip you’d probably pay more like $20 for something likely worse.

I'd be unsurprised if you could get a jar of peanut butter or a turkey in the US for a lot less than you could in Japan. This tells you nothing about the economy.

Non-instant ramen (or peanut butter) is vastly more popular in one country than another. Comparing the prices between the US and Japan is trying to compare the prices of a specialty food and a common food. Of course the prices will be different.

I'm going to be a party pooper here and point out that though this may be presented as an April Fool's joke, its main joke is that in a live debate, it is extremely funny to strawman your opponent's side. That's bad practice whether done as a joke or not.

Many of these things are subject to the objection "and you know who else proclaims that they're innocent? Innocent people."

Advice which says "don't act like you're innocent, and be skeptical of someone who claims to be innocent" is generally bad advice.

It also pattern-matches to a very clumsy smear, which I get the impression is triggering readers before they manage to appreciate how it relates to the thesis.

It doesn't just pattern match to a clumsy smear. It's also not the only clumsy smear in the article. You're acting as though that's the only questionable thing Metz wrote and that taken in isolation you could read it in some strained way to keep it from being a smear. It was not published in isolation.

I’m just arguing that there is a tension between common rationalist ideology that one should have a strong presumption in favor of telling the truth, and that Cade Metz shouldn’t have doxxed Scott Alexander.

His doxing Scott was in an article that also contained lies, lies which made the doxing more harmful. He wouldn't have just posted Scott's real name in a context where no lies were involved.

Another is recipes for destruction, where you give a small hostile faction the ability to unilaterally cause harm. ... But that seems less relevant for his real name, when it is readily available and he ends up facing tons of attention regardless.

By coincidence, Scott has written about this subject.

Not being completely hidden isn't "readily available". If finding his name is even a trivial inconvenience, it doesn't cause the damage caused by plastering his name in the Times.

The vague insinuation isn't "Scott agrees with Murray", the vague insinuation is "Scott agrees with Murray's deplorable beliefs, as shown by this reference". The reference shows no such thing.

Arguing "well, Scott believes that anyway" is not an excuse for fake evidence.

I think some kinds of criticism are good and some are not. Criticizing you because I have some well-stated objection to your ideas is good. Criticizing you by saying "Zach posts in a place which contains fans of Adolf Hitler" is bad. Criticizing you by causing real-life problems to happen to you (i.e. analogous to doxing Scott) is also bad.