I'm only talking about the Google paper brought up in this thread, because logarithmic growth does asymptotically decrease over time. I didn't say that the Goog

I'm only talking about the Google paper brought up in this thread, because logarithmic growth does asymptotically decrease over time. I didn't say that the Google paper asserts absolute decreases over time, such that more training data actually makes results worse. Just that more data becomes too expensive to be worth it in a logarithmic context.