Literally the only future-related thing we know about the article’s third quadrant is that they may be involved in Bitcoin or something.
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 have more disagreements with it than can fit in a blog post, but let’s stick with the top five.
In real life, this is what futurists are doing too.
Third, the article wants to classify some technologies as inextricably associated with privilege, but it has a pretty weird conception of which ones they are.
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?
In the real world, everyone from all four “quadrants” of futurist are either allies, or the same people.
Again, I feel like this is the kind of error you could only make if you totally missed that futurism was a real subject, and you just wanted to make it into a morality play for your particular political opinions. So will all the rest of us, rich and poor, old and young, black and white.
Fifth, another quote from the article: In the end my taxonomy (as amusing as I find it) doesn’t really matter to the average person. And if there’s a positive singularity, you will also notice.