> Maybe some of you think I’m an idiot: You don’t get it at all lol. But that’s kind of my point. There are insiders and outsiders. When I talk to researchers or engineers who are happy to drop AGI into the conversation as a given, it’s like they know something I don’t. But nobody’s ever been able to tell me what that something is.

They have, including multiple times in this very article, but the author's not willing to listen. As he says later:

> But set aside the technical objections—what if it doesn't continue to get better?—and you’re left with the claim that intelligence is a commodity you can get more of if you have the right data or compute or neural network. And it’s not.

Modern AI researchers have proven that this is not true. They routinely increase the intelligence of systems by training on different data, using different compute, or applying different network architectures. But the author is absolutely convinced that this can't be so, so when researchers straightforwardly explain that they have done this, he's stuck trying to puzzle out what they could possibly mean. He references "Situational Awareness", an essay that includes detailed analyses of how researchers do this and why we should expect similar progress to continue, but he interprets it as a claim that "you don’t need cold, hard facts" because he presumes that the facts it presents can't possibly be true.