Indeed, that was my criticism- it is absurd to expect something to keep increasing forever just because it did increase for a short duration previously, especially given what we do know about how human brains work. Even the hypothetical explanations they raise the article "better nutrition and healthcare" as well as the "positive manifold" idea would obviously be limited, basically one-time effects.

Moreover, despite being a generalist myself, and not being a fan of specialization, I don't see any convincing evidence of an increase in specialization- which their argument is founded on. Humans have been highly specialized for most of modern history, yet it has only recently been popular to explore the downsides of that and push the other way. If anything this has been reducing, especially in the sciences with the advent of new broader interdisciplinary fields like systems biology. The examples in the article like "high schools now teach coding and advanced mathematics" also seem like evidence of a reduction in specialization that existed previously. Does this person really think people are getting dumber because high schools are teaching kids too much advanced mathematics?

> I think it used to be a rule on HN to read the article before commenting

No, HN has clear guidelines on this. There is no requirement to read an article before commenting, but it is not allowed to accuse someone of having not read an article or to comment in a way that questions or implies that they might not have. It is also required to assume good faith, and anyone criticizing an articles content is implicitly claiming to have read it.