[whalee]

imo it's a mistake to interpret the marginal increases in the upper echelons of benchmarks as materially marginal gains. Chess is an example. ELO narrows heavily at the top, but each ELO point carries more relative weight. This is a bit apples and oranges since chess is adversarial, but I think the point stands.

[wavemode]

> ELO narrows heavily at the top

What do you mean by this? I'm assuming you're not speaking about simple absolute differences in value - there have been top players rated over 100 points higher than the average of the rest of the top ten.