It has many technical mistakes besides the odd writing style

1. It uses non-idiomatic terminology in several places.

2. It repeats the same finding over and over (141 flops per byte, for example), without going deeper.

3. I stopped reading about a quarter of the way through because it felt like it was never going to stop teasing me about what it was going to tell me and actually tell me it.

4. It seems to assume the reader has a lot of context that isn't explicitly laid out (and which the reader wouldn't get just from reading the prior work, which is cited).

For example, I understand some of what it is saying because I used some similar techniques to benchmark things in the past (running at multiple scales to estimate overhead + marginal gains with a linear regression), but I wouldn't expect anyone who hasn't personally done that to follow the prose.

Cmd-F for "AI" has 1000+ hits!

The burden of proof should be with the beholder. Must be so easy to scream AI when you don’t want to read an article.