Gah this is the second time I got tricked into reading this entire thing, it's long, and it's impossible to know until the very end they're building up to nothi

Gah this is the second time I got tricked into reading this entire thing, it's long, and it's impossible to know until the very end they're building up to nothing. It's really good morsel by morsel, it's a nice survey of well-informed thought, but then it just sort of waves it hands, screams "The ~Aristocrats~ AGI!" at the end. More precisely, not direct quote: "GPT-4 is like a smart high schooler, it's a well-informed estimate that compute spend will expand by a factor similar to GPT-2 to GPT-4, so I estimate we'll do a GPT-2 to GPT-4 qualitative leap from GPT-4 by 2027, which is AGI. "Smart high schooler" and "AGI" aren't plottable Y-axis values. OOMs of compute are. It's strange to present this as well-informed conclusion based on trendlines that tells us where AGI would hit, and I can't help but call intentional click bait, because we know the author knows this: they note at length things like "we haven't even scratched the surface on system II thinking, ex. LLMs can't successfully emulate being given 2 months to work on a problem versus having to work on it immediately"