Consider two future technologies.
For technology A:
- The underling physical laws governing it are fully understood.
- A blueprint for the technology is available and the universal consensus of scientists is that this blueprint will work.
- A worldwide consortium of scientists has undertaken to build the technology and are funded tune of $10B's
For technology B, none of this is true:
- There is no agreement on the underlying rules describing how and whether the system will work
- The general consensus is that existing blueprints will not work no matter how much they are scaled up
- The largest projects are in the $10M's of dollars and are frequently deemed "too expensive"
Which of these technologies would you expect to be developed first?
I would argue, based on this evidence, that AGI is no closer (and probably in fact much further) away than Commercial Nuclear Fusion. I furthermore suspect there is less than a 50/50 chance that nuclear fusion will achieve "positive energy" by ITER's 2035 target.
Standard railways have a track gauge of less than 1.5 meters. Back in the 1930s, Hitler planned the Breitspurbahn, broad-gauge railway with a track gauge of 3 meters. No dramatic new tech required, but it would seriously scale up transportation by rail of people and goods. Hitler planned to connect many European cities with them.
None of that happened. We're still using the old track gauge, and European connections are relatively mediocre. But we've landed on the Moon and we've all got smartphones in our pockets.
Planned developments with relatively straightforward tech regularly don't happen. Surprising new tech regularly disrupts all plans.
I'm not saying the future is completely unknowable, but your three requirements don't seem too matter very much when you look for similar scenarios in history.