The current HN submission title ("AGI timelines shift with whichever lab is dominant") is very bad. It is neither the title of the article nor is it the thrust of the content.

The title of the article is "How long until AI automates all cognitive labor?"

The main point of the article is summarized by its intro: "Recently, though, I noticed that many great researchers have now published two or more precise forecasts, all using similar definitions of AGI, and all providing confidence intervals. So I was able to visualize how their forecasts changed over time."

The closest the article comes to saying the HN submitted title is:

> And every single person who updated their timelines from January 2026 to April 2026 has moved their timeline to say AGI is coming sooner, myself included.

> So I think the data supports the impression I got from Daniel, Eli, and the AI Futures team. One way I could characterize it is: in the ChatGPT era, people updated towards AI coming sooner. Then in the xAI, Meta, and Gemini era, people updated towards it coming later. Then in the Anthropic era, people updated towards AI coming sooner. Take from that what you will.

There was a ChatGPT era, and now an Anthropic era (less so though than the initial boom was 'ChatGPT dominated'), but there never was an xAI, Meta, and Gemini era.

You're right, just updated.

Original title took one framing from the back half of the post (3 update cycles that can loosely be called the "ChatGPT era, then xAI/Meta/Gemini era, then Anthropic era"), but definitely not the point here. Thanks for flagging

Author here, I agree, I'd be happy if admins want to change the title of this submission to the title of the piece.