I think that this is fairly simple. Digital privacy requires digital autonomy, privacy without autonomy is tantamount to a promise without any way to verify (confirming a negative is often difficult if not impossible).

Your beliefs may conflict if you find yourself pro-authoritarian (no autonomy).

> I guess, to use the terms of your analogy

It is not an analogy, though, it is an example of a hierarchical value.

> You seem to be saying that people can't paint together unless everyone agrees on who holds the brush, what brand of brush is used, and what everyone's broader philosophy of painting is.

But these are not all hierarchical values. You can't paint with a brush unless you know what a brush is. Holding the brush, the brand of the brush, are not values implicit in the hierarchy of what a brush is or how to paint with one.

Your last example "broader philosophy of painting", is an example. You can agree to all use a brush, but if you stare at a wall and call it "painting", you've violated the agreed upon hierarchy.

You can hold some values as core to your position, your belief. Outside of your beliefs, there is a strict hierarchy of values.

Colors require perception, kinematics breaks down without velocity/acceleration.

Being Aetheist or Christian conveniently doesn't tend to conflict with the general hierarchy of values, which is independent of your particular religious interpretation of them. Your interpretation of the general hierarchy, can cause issues, however.

It's per the usual for extremist ideologies, chock full of hypocrisy and nonsense.

Note that, I have no problem with conservative or liberal value systems...

This part is too broad.

Hierarchical values are just that. Not wholesale. We call that nonsense, e.g. I believe pigs can fly, therefore the sky is red. They are making an ontological error.

Values have a hierarchy. You can't (effectively) agree to painting everything the color blue, if you can't agree what the color blue is.

And you will run into a very similar issue when everyone starts objecting to the pink you have spread everywhere, despite supposedly agreeing to the color scheme.

So when people support EFF's technological goals (freedoms for users on technology platforms), if they are themselves possibly on the right, they project their own values onto the organization or system (which here is the EFF).

Never-mind if some of those values are incompatible with the values you think you hold (being authoritarian generally is incompatible with being not being authoritarian about technology). When someone points out the (otherwise obvious) contradiction to you, you're surprised that your set of values is incongruous.

Now this can happen to anyone coming from any political starting point, they agree with something but find it doesn't quite fit with their world views. If you are deeply religious about it, you tend to hold on for dear life and either decide to "pick" on set of values over another (suddenly you realize, actually, yes you would like to enslave everyone) or engage in some form of hypocrisy or another (authoritarians are good, but for some reason or the other I'm going to make an exception for technology).

Monoply on force is meaningless, if you shoot your head off with it, which is what is happening with the US atm...

Criminally stupid is the trump all card, pun intended.

I can easily imagine where we simply disable eval completely, (except in specific scenarios perhaps).

At it's core the issue is dynamism itself. I don't think it should be forsaken, but the issue is, yes, JS does a terrible job of making it explicit. If the language itself required a matter of explicitly, then it would make the whole attack generally more difficult to pull off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_second_law

We do have flying cars, and we do have printers that print other printers, but both were some combination of really expensive/poor quality. Technically speaking, if you take it that most cities have 3D printers, most cities then do have micro factories, however that says nothing about general feasability...

Technology requires infrastructure and resources, and our infrastructure is strained and our resources are even more so... Until the costs become pocket change for the average person, technology will just remain generally unavailable.

That may be the extreme example, but there are many processes that involve processing chemicals without any "petrochemicals" being involved...

Expect any claims that things are being deleted to be a bold faced lie.

Any time you have to include "competent" in a description of a job or related technology, that's a clue that it needs requisite oversight and (possibly exponetial) proportionate cost.

The premise of the article is stupid, though...yes, they aren't us.

A human might grow corn, or decide it should be grown. But the AI doesn't need corn, it won't grown corn, and it doesn't need any of the other things.

This is why, they are not useful to us.

Put it in science fiction terms. You can create a monster, and it can have super powers, _but that does not make it useful to us_. The extremely hungry monster will eat everything it sees, but it won't make anyone's life better.

Any script can be shortened by hiding commands in other commands.

LLMs run parameters in the billions.

Lines of code, as usual, is an incredibly poor metric to go by here.

Their main idea is to version control the reasoning, which, OK, cool. They want to graph the reasoning and requirements, sounds nice, but there are graph languages that fit conviently into git to achieve this already...

I also fundamentally disagree with the notion that the code is "just an artifact". The idea to specify a model is cute, but, these are indeterminate systems that don't produce reliable output. A compiler may have bugs yes, but generally speaking the same code will always produce the same machine instructions, something that the proposed scheme does not...

A higher order reasoning language is not unreasonable, however the imagined system does not yet exist...