I listen to his podcast semi-regularly, and this just seems like a pretty slippery description of his views. It's pretty obvious that he favors the United States taking a less aggressive stance toward China, for example in his views on the various protectionist measures that the United States has taken in the last ten years. He also seems to see more room for cooperation than anyone I would describe as a China hawk, and in this podcast he suggests that China could likely liberalize after Xi:

https://www.manifold1.com/episodes/molson-hart-china-and-amazon-up-close-60/transcript

I don't think it's an unreasonable take, but it's not one that I would describe as "hawkish".

This argument seems to be a one by analogy. steam engine:industrial revolution::???:machine learning. But as you can see there's a term in the analogy I don't understand. Is ??? chatgpt? LLMs? Transformers? AlexNet? The internet? Digital computers? Something that hasn't yet been invented?

It should be pointed out that the original paper/press release describing GPT-4 explicitly says that they found that BIG-bench had contaminated their training data, and therefore excluded it as an evaluation. As far as I know there was no similar disclosure for claude or other models. See footnote 5 here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774v1

Leetcode questions are not selected for novelty. In fact, the best way to get a problem turned into a Leetcode question is to post it to Leetcode's discussion board and say someone asked you it in an interview at a big tech company. So it's still possible that some or even many these questions appear nearly verbatim in the training data.