I'll take a moment to comment on this, after reading the responses which challenge your conclusion.
This criticism is entirely justified for a narrow read of your point, that the specific and relatively-widely-disseminated papers/projects, themselves, represent specific progress towards e.g. take-off or AGI or SI.
But it's also unjustified to the extent that these particular papers are proxies for broader research directions—indeed, many of the other comments provide reading lists for related and prior work.
I.e. it's not that this or that particular paper is the hop. It's that the bunny is oriented in the right direction and many microhops are occurring. What one chooses to label a hop amid the aggregate twitches and movement is a question for pedants.
This criticism is entirely justified for a narrow read of your point, that the specific and relatively-widely-disseminated papers/projects, themselves, represent specific progress towards e.g. take-off or AGI or SI.
But it's also unjustified to the extent that these particular papers are proxies for broader research directions—indeed, many of the other comments provide reading lists for related and prior work.
I.e. it's not that this or that particular paper is the hop. It's that the bunny is oriented in the right direction and many microhops are occurring. What one chooses to label a hop amid the aggregate twitches and movement is a question for pedants.
Meanwhile the bunny might be moving.