zlacker

You are right, I'm playing fast and loose with some assumptions and opinions without citations.

I just don't like falling into the other trap of wasting my day to write a complete paper with citations for some loosely defined internet argument on a subject that is already stacked on a pile of controversy and misunderstandings. I think I could easily find a number of citations that have conflated vocabulary, or re-defined vocabulary. This is my opinion, don't think I need to document a cited cross reference list of these re-defined terms to say this.

Probably this is the same problem that exists between a research paper, and a popular science book. Neither is as detailed and exact or also as high level and understandable as everyone desires. So, yes, these are some opinions, just from a certain point of view, my opinions are more correct than others opinions.

>>Frustr+(OP)
The point isn’t that you need citations - it’s that there is nothing to cite that can credibly inform us as to the size of the remaining gap.

>>jeremy+rr
Well. I'm really not trying to get the last word here. But if this is a problem, that if we don't have any a way to credibly inform the future, then we can't talk about it, then how can we ever talk about anything. There is entire cottage industry of futurists that don't have any way to judge how far off there predictions are, to inform the remaining gap. Maybe you have same issues with them. And maybe I do too really, I'm pretty perturbed by so many researchers switching context and vocabulary to fit their own narrative. I'm just some joe schmo with an opinion, and am only pointing out that advancements have been occurring at a really rapid pace and almost universally (opinion) all predictions have been wrong so far. So maybe this gap will close rapidly.

Or more to the main post, a lot of head down engineers cranking out solutions do loose sight of how far they are moving.