[estearum]

And inversely, you'd be in a state of complete unactionable aloofness if you didn't care or failed to relate the hobbies of "some" people to mean anything in real life.

A smart person in 2014: "Some people are getting addicted to fentanyl"

Me, smugly: "Some is doing heavy lifting. I therefore do not need to engage with anything being discussed here."

[linkregister]

Being unwilling to compare degrees or amounts is not a flex.

[estearum]

Huh? Very few people in 2014 were addicted to fentanyl. It was a non-issue. No reason for anyone to have been concerned about it if just "some" people were using it.

Degrees or amounts is actually not the relevant bit in either the AI-partners trend or the fentanyl trend in 2014. The relevant information is 1) the steepness of that curve and 2) the predicted scale at which the market saturates.

Fentanyl, being an extremely cheap, extremely potent drug that's easy to manufacture and move around, had a big market. As the curve picked up steepness, smart people identified correctly that some people getting hooked on it was a worrisome sign.

AI-partners, being an innovation that is readily available, falling in cost, and especially compelling to a population that is increasingly phone-addicted and socially atomized, is a trend worth paying very close attention to. Dismissing it on the basis of it being just "some" people is profoundly lazy.