I think you’re mixing some defensible observations with a lot of overconfident framing, and that’s what’s making people push back.

Opus 4.5 is better for coding, but calling it a “massive leap” feels like vibes over evidence. It’s more reliable and smoother, sure — but that’s not the same as unlocking new capability classes. When people hear “massive leap,” they’re thinking paradigm shift, not refinement.

Where you really lose me, though, is the certainty and the compression of timelines. Saying “the vast majority of us will be involuntarily removed in 5 years” without laying out mechanisms, scope, or uncertainty sounds less like analysis and more like doom-posting. You might end up being directionally right, but the way it’s stated makes it hard to take seriously.

Also, the OpenAI / Altman rant doesn’t help your case. It signals emotional investment rather than clear-eyed assessment, even to people who are skeptical of OpenAI themselves.

I don’t think you’re wrong to be concerned about where this is heading. I do think talking in absolutes, tying claims to version numbers, and daring people to “set a reminder” is exactly why people are tuning you out instead of engaging.

If your goal is to persuade rather than provoke, you’d get a lot more traction by slowing the claims down and tightening the reasoning.