If something stays in motion and has been so for some time, it's more important to explain why it would not continue rather than the default assumption that it

If something stays in motion and has been so for some time, it's more important to explain why it would not continue rather than the default assumption that it will stop instantaneously. Show me a curve of diminishing returns and I'll believe you. If an object is in motion you'd need to show me that there is deceleration, or there is a wall just up ahead. But the fact is that the loss goes down predictably with increased compute budget, data and model size (see Chinchilla Scaling Law). We've also seen that decreased loss suddenly results in new capabilities in discontinuous jumps. There is all reason to believe there is still some juice left in this scaling, exactly how far it can be taken is difficult to tell.