The author has come up with their own, _unusual_ definition of the bitter lesson. In fact, as a direct quote, the original Is:

> Seeking an improvement that makes a difference in the shorter term, researchers seek to leverage their human knowledge of the domain, but the only thing that matters in the long run is the leveraging of computation.

eg: “the study of linguistics doesn’t help you build an LLM” or “you don’t need to know about chicken physiology to make a vision system that tells you how old a chicken is”

The author then uses a narrow and _unusual_ definition of what computation _means_, by saying it simply means access to fast chips, rather than the work you can perform on them, which would obviously include how efficiently you use them.

In short, this article misuses two terms to more simply say “looks like the scaling laws still work”.