asntbqjkwbaoeuc

Depending on how you look at it, this idea has been around for a long time. At least since the 1980's it's been known that functional programming can be considered the logical basis of all of math [0]. A hardliner might even say that the notion that all math is functional programming goes back to the 1920s with Brouwer.

In particular, optimization, being a branch of math, is itself a type of functional programming. Similarly, neural networks are functional programs. Programming with differentiable functions as a field on its own goes back at least as far as the 1960s. Closely related ideas like algebraic topology go back to the 1890s (this would be programming with continuous functions rather than differentiable).

The language of type theory is typically the province of computer science. The corresponding language in math is category theory. There are a few mathematicians who have been working on a categorical theory of neural networks. But this is pretty far from a mainstream research area.

Perhaps with people like Colah and Dalrymple pointing out these connections from a more applied point of view, these ideas will pick up steam.

[0] There is are technical caveats here that aren't interesting when talking about math that can be done on computers.

In a free market, there are winners and losers. The winners have a strong economic incentive to keep their communication private, as has been the case throughout human history. If you want to prevent this, you need some sort of system that has power over all citizens. But you argue against a central authority of any sort, so how does this work?

In addition, I'm assuming given your distrust for the government and love of markets that all means of communication will be private. Private capital tends to monopoly, so we can expect in your utopia that all means of communication are owned by a small group of people. This group of people has practical control over everyone's data.

This group of people might decide to release everyone's data in order to appease your desire for a post-privacy utopia, but almost certainly they'll keep it for their economic advantage.

The resulting system you are advocating is one in which a tiny percentage of people has near-universal control over the populace.

You can try to equalize things by creating an alternative system in which all data is public, say by having cameras that stream to some publicly accessible resource. But the streaming and the cameras will be the private property of organizations that have a strong incentive for you not to do this. And since the entire infrastructure is owned by such organizations, you would be in violation of your end user agreement to start such a project. It would make you a "liar" when you signed the Internet EULA, which, as you say in another comment, is the worst crime imaginable.

Under your scheme, do workers in the military enjoy privacy while they work? If they don't how do you protect the citizens? If they do---and if they are the only people who enjoy privacy in your land of forced transparency---how does this not stabilize to a military dictatorship?