I think the epistemic status of the typical main post (now, standards may have been different in the past) is "believed" while the epistemic status of the original post seems to be "musing for reaction" based on your statements in this thread. I think it would be possible for it to be rewritten in such a way that fewer people would complain about it being in main without actually changing the core of the information it contains.

You're not claiming that it belongs in Discussion due to content

Wrong.

Your "narrative hook" is the only claim with even a tiny amount of real substance behind it.

This is a claim about its content.

I don't think that's what people usually mean when they say something is more appropriate for Discussion.

Even if I were arguing that it belongs in Discussion merely on the basis of quality (which I am not), this is what many actual people have actually meant.

What, exactly, would qualify as "substance" for a discussion of this type? Can you point to any other speculations about the timing of the Singularity that have more substance?

Kurzweil's process of fitting everything to an exponential curve. Gwern's essay on computational overhang. Fermi estimates of the processing power necessary to emulate a human brain, and possible corrections to Moore's law in the post ~5nm world.

I believe this makes my position sufficiently clear. As the post has already been moved to Discussion, any further clarification is kind of pointless.