alt Hacker NewsEach failed prediction should lower our confidence in the next "it's finally useful!" claim. But this inductive reasoning breaks down at genuine inflection points.
I agree with your framing that measuring should NOT be separated from political issues, but each can be made clear separately (framing it as "training the tools of the oppressor" seems to conflate measuring tool usefulness with politics).
> genuine inflection points
Sure, but if those such as yourself actually cared about this then you'd stop claiming every release was a "genuine inflection point".
If I say every morning, "it is going to rain today", and I am told I am wrong for 100 days by a meteorologist, and then it finally does rain, should I say, "See, I was always right"? You know, Aesop wrote 'the boy who cried wolf' as a cautionary tale.
If at any point any of these releases were "genuine inflection points" it would be unnecessary to proselytize such. It would be self evident. Much like rain.
> measuring actual usefulness
"The oppressed need to acknowledge that their oppression is useful to their oppressors."
How is it useful to you that these companies are so valuation hungry that they are moving money into this technology in such a way that people are fearful it could cripple the entire global economy?
How is it useful to you that this tech is so power hungry that environmental externalities are being further accelerated while regular people's utility costs are raising to cover the increased demand(whether they use the tech to "code" or "manifest art")?
How is it useful to you that this tech is so compute hungry that they are seemingly ending the industry of personal compute to feed this tech's demand?
How is it useful to you that this tech is so water hungry that it is emptying drinking water acquifers?
How is it useful to you that this tech is being used to manufacture consent?