The author never even begins to give any argument about why the future will be good or bad, or why a singularity might or might not happen.
I’m not sure she even realizes this is an option, or the sort of thing some people might think relevant.
I have more disagreements with it than can fit in a blog post, but let’s stick with the top five.
For the average person there is no difference between the singularity as imagined by futurists in Q1 or Q2 and a world in which they are already consistently and secretly shunted to the “loser” side of each automated decision. I would promise you infinite wealth, but that sort of thing kind of loses its meaning in a post-scarcity society.
I already posited that the author doesn’t understand “Singularity”, but this is something beyond that. There will be no difference for the average person between a (positive or negative) post-singularity world and the world now? I would promise you immortality, but who knows if we’ll even have individual consciousnesses at that point?
The article seems to use “singularitarianism” to mean “cool near-future technologies”, which is kind of the opposite of its real meaning.
This is a fatal error for an article proposing a system classifying all futurists as “singularitarian” vs. It makes sense only in the context of the author having no interest in futurist movements at all, and indeed she later more-or-less admits that by ‘singularitarian optimists’ she means ‘rich white people she doesn’t like’.
It gives five examples of technologies that it’s possible to worry about without being a privileged white man, and every one of them is a different form of algorithmic bias. That’s the only future technology it’s okay to care about?