> "didn’t you say that you check all the AI generated code for Redis?"... Yes, I do

For important code (Redis) he is still reading the diffs.

> but: try it yourself, you will discover you can’t just say “implement XYZ” and see it working.

Yes, good software still requires engineering today.

No code to show yet. I'm taking the time it requires.

They are extremely useful for that, yes.

The worst case is a risk that has a low ensemble HR and low life years impact, but will kill you personally very soon if you take the wrong action. Eating peanuts has an HR of 1, unless you are prone to fatal anaphylaxis from peanuts. HRs are useful for (and biased towards) doctors protecting as many humans as possible, but as an individual you should try to discover your peanut allergies as early as possible and protect yourself against them.

I do not think the response addresses the claims made, and uses logical fallacies in place of a well reasoned response.

> a team of highly-regarded European academic cryptographers

This is absolutely an appeal to authority.

Incorrect, and trivially falsifiable. Examples:

- Self hosting, where you control both client and server.

- Loading a web app from file:///

- Loading a web app from localhost.

The author's "no exceptions" is simply wrong.

The author also seems to assume the same server is required to both serve the code and store/transmit encrypted messages which obviously isn't the case. In addition the statements about service workers are ignorant.

The rest of the analysis is largely correct and the threat outlined (where somebody can replace your client) is a serious one that many underestimate. In particular the proprietary native mobile app model is vulnerable to this, as mentioned.

This is not the problem. Even if, like millions, you are not talking about these things online, these systems still place you in danger. Even if you are a perfect, clean, compliant citizen these privacy-destroying systems place you in danger.

Fundamentally these systems expose you to coercion, extortion, blackmail, ID theft, etc. by criminals and immoral people who want money or power over you. There are countless examples of bad actors inside and outside these systems obtaining access to innocent people's private data and misusing it to their detriment.

This is the strongest argument against these bad ideas. Arguments that paint innocent, privacy-seeking people as suspicious or immoral in any way, should not be used.

It is rational and moral to seek privacy for your own safety and the safety of those you care for. Don't let them argue otherwise.

Nobody will run that trial though because we've spent decades telling people the sun is dangerous and gives you cancer (both things can be true of course). Putting people in the sun every day would not pass ethics tests.

Also you cannot sell sunlight.