This is important to the framing of the idea: "the technological singularity" refers to a point in the future past which further developments can't be meaningfully foreseen or maybe even understood. This is often associated with particular paths people think will cause this, but not defined by those. As such, the prior comments are making the claim that you can get there not just by accelerating technological progress, but also by reducing the ability of everyone to comprehend what's happening, which I agree is unfortunately a plausible outcome in the current world

Also frankly I would mind companies like SpaceX being contracted to build and sell satellites a lot less than them also continuing to control or operate them

Coincidence? You decide

I believe some functions are simply best performed by non-profit-motivated government agencies. However, I would usually prefer an actual unregulated or black market over the corrupt frankenstein of private-public partnerships

Aiding that impression is that you are using the language of marketing to imply that this open-source project is intended as a product and trying to attract a market to adopt it, but that somehow the mere oblique possibility of invocation of a subculture that you personally dislike but which is also quite large would harm rather than help them do that if this were their aim. Personally, I don't see the mere presence of such an example game as having much meaning at all, and this whole "you wouldn't want to attract the wrong sorts of people" style argument is so classic a pearl-clutcher line that I almost wanted to call Poe's Law on it, but instead I took you to be earnest and seem to have judged correctly

Rest assured, I strive for honesty above all else, read whole posts before replying to them, and do my best to reason through what I am saying, have done so here, and continue to hold the impression I stated

Also worth noting that you don't gotta do much to support software (or any solution) that only one person uses

Like, yes the main point of leverage obviously isn't software quality, but also, if AI can't cause one person to be able to solve those other problems at some scale that's currently not possible with no other human help, those problems become problems someone else could also throw the AI at. If running a business relies on having some point of market leverage over anyone who pays your business for something, the reduction of the cost of independently gaining that leverage necessarily means the reduction of the value of your business

I guess another possible means to a single-person company with a billion dollar valuation is hyperinflation

I already think valuation is a very gameable metric, so I guess you could trivially get this done if you meet a VC who will just buy you a billion dollar valuation on the belief that this is a real thing. I know some enthusiastic kids in the world I could maybe throw a thousand bucks at to buy a GPU in exchange for a millionth of their company, and technically wouldn't that make them a one-person unicorn already?

A model that treats what effectively amounts to a body of assets united by a charter as equivalent to a person - except when it isn't - is inherently confusing because these are not at all similar kinds of entities. While it's clear that this model has a purpose, I think people are right to point out that the equivalence is drawn by rather stilted logic and even more right to question whether the consequences of this legal framing are desirable from their perspective