I think your questions are at least partly answered by the remainder of that paragraph:
I am a computational physicist, so I do have familarity with computational modelling, and the actual model used in this forecast is fairly simple at only 300 lines of code or so (which is not necessarily a bad thing). In this article I will do my best to stay in my lane, and simply explain to you the assumptions and structure of their model, and then explain the various problems I have with what they did.
Do you have more specific criticisms, e.g. ways in which they failed to ‘stay in my lane’ or reasons why they can’t make a meaningful contribution from within their lane?
my criticism is that the article is written in a way that is categorically “correcting for a faulted model” from an outsider. Yes you can suggest corrections of course if there is a blatant mistake. But the assumptions are the most important in these models and assumptions are best done by people that have worked and contributed in the top AI labs.
I think your questions are at least partly answered by the remainder of that paragraph:
Do you have more specific criticisms, e.g. ways in which they failed to ‘stay in my lane’ or reasons why they can’t make a meaningful contribution from within their lane?
my criticism is that the article is written in a way that is categorically “correcting for a faulted model” from an outsider. Yes you can suggest corrections of course if there is a blatant mistake. But the assumptions are the most important in these models and assumptions are best done by people that have worked and contributed in the top AI labs.