<muurkha>I think AI can't actually play Pokemon Go right now <clemens3>waiting for ai writing a list interpreter <muurkha>clemens3: have you seen miniKanren writing a quine, given a Lisp interpreter? <muurkha>I wonder if you could use a similar approach to write a Lisp compiler <oriansj>well it is only a matter of time before AI overcomes human strength, as we know it has already overcome human weakness. <Hagfish>"Security is important, but it is not an aspect of freedom." <Hagfish>huh... i've not heard someone make such a big distinction before <Hagfish>he admits "security means you are safe from danger", but surely one type of danger is the danger that your freedom is removed <Hagfish>so yeah, i guess bootstrapping is about defending against the danger the malicious compilers (etc.) pose to freedom <Hagfish>actually i think he just wants his four freedoms to be at the heart of the ethical/philosophical map, and he doesn't want someone coming along and pointing out that they are contingent on safety <Hagfish>he already had to adjust from 3 freedoms to 4, so someone adding a 5th that he's been missing all these years would really annoy him <Hagfish>it's sort of an interesting question: what are the requirements for software freedom to exist? <Hagfish>well, there has to exist software in the world, and hardware to run it, and people who understand the source code <Hagfish>and there has to be a process which faithfully makes that software run on the hardware <Hagfish>and this all has to exist in a society that makes these actions legal and safe, to some extent <Hagfish>i guess those are all requirements for non-free software too, so they were sort of assumed by RMS, which isn't a mistake ***ChanServ sets mode: +o janneke
<oriansj>Hagfish: well it is a defense one can only have if and only if they have the source code for all of the pieces in their bootstrap chain. <oriansj>and of course ideally also having the 4 freedoms as well for that source code but I can imagine source code released under a non-free license which could exist <Hagfish>yeah, i suppose even non-free software developers care about bootstrappability to some extent, so maybe the goals overlap less than i thought <oriansj>Hagfish: well bootstrappability is a natural property of free (as in freedom) software <stikonas>yeah, for non-free software you can at best hope for reproducibility <Hagfish>i think if an organisation is relying on non-free software, they have to hope (or require through a contract) that their suppliers (of tools, libraries etc.) have done the due diligence on their own bootstrappability situation <stikonas>I think they just rely on contract/lawyers to try to avoid backdoors, i.e. if you supply backdoors, we'll sue you <Hagfish>yeah, that's a very different trust model to what free software gives us <stikonas>in fact proably very few organizations only rely on free software, most do not... <Hagfish>i'd like to think that only a minority of organisations rely solely on proprietary software too :) <stikonas>well, quite a few I guess use mix of free and non-free software