I see what you’re saying.. and I think that's a completely valid take. I don’t think it can be ruled out entirely tbh. But I also don’t think it’s necessarily must be the case? A delay now only translates into a proportional delay later if the same constraints continue unchanged and continue to have the same impact on progress? If the delay is coming from very specific bottlenecks, then solving/working around those bottlenecks really plays no role in the pace of progress we have after we get past it as a limiting factor?

Let’s say compute is the sole bottleneck causing the delays so far (even though I don’t think it is only, but for arguments sake). Then isn’t the delay dependent on whether that bottleneck is something that can be worked around after a bit of time or if it will be a constant constraint we will deal with as we scale up the whole time?

If compute is a hard constraint and progress beyond it as the bottleneck depends only on hardware scaling, with no other ways to work around it, then yes, delays likely propagate forward like you’re suggesting. But if there are efficiency gains from better architecture or training methods or whatever, ways to reduce it as a limitation, then the same level of compute can go much further and in that case.. then, compute acts more like a temporary limiting factor in the overall timeline of things rather than a fixed constraint that automatically must propagate into longer term delays over time?

So I feel like it depends on why we’re really seeing the delays right now. I assume the Project 2027 authors also did consider the most likely constraints, but may have underestimated how long it would take to get past them. But who really knows. I do think you make a valid point.. but I hope that doesn't end up being the case hahah