I think you don't understand how primary research works. Pointing out flaws helps others think about those flaws. It's not a linear process so I'm not sure the

I think you don't understand how primary research works. Pointing out flaws helps others think about those flaws. It's not a linear process so I'm not sure the "bottleneck" analogy holds here. We're not limited to only talking about "the bottleneck". I think the argument is more that we're very close to optimal results for the current approach/architecture, so getting superior outcomes from AI will actually require meaningfully different approaches.