It's curious why people try to build arguments for linear or even worse growth. The arguments are so odd, it seems to me that they are more about the wishes of

It's curious why people try to build arguments for linear or even worse growth. The arguments are so odd, it seems to me that they are more about the wishes of the author then an attempt to provide a counter argument. Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding of the theory? Why is this argument about AI? The idea of a technological Singularity has nothing to do with AI. In fact the theory is pretty explicit about the fact the details of future technology are unknowable, and generally never predicted correctly. The theory attempts to explain a global evolutionary model in which global evolution continues despite the speed of localized evolutionary systems, like say biological evolution. Local effects of any particular technology's growth are not predicted, and moreover they are said to be unpredictable. Even if the op was successful at arguing that AI does not work like every other technological system that is not salient to the ETA of the Singularity. The point is not that cpus double in transistor density every 18 months, and therefore Skynet. The point is that evolution was exponential, human knowledge was exponential, electrical technology was exponential, digital technology was exponential, biological technology was exponential, and in aggregate exponential growth across all technologies is consistent and predictable. Even as one technology's growth or usefulness tappers off, others supplant it. If you arbitrary pick something say, vacuum tubes or the printing press, and create some sort of argument that it doesn't in and of it self experience exponential growth, you may succeed in your argument, but you haven't said anything.