The probability that Artificial General Intelligence will be developed by 2043 is extremely low.

I haven't read this post, I just wanted to speculate about the downvoting, in case it helps.

Assigning "zero" probability is an infinite amount of error.  In practice you wouldn't be able to compute the log error.  More colloquially, you're infinitely confident about something, which in practice and expectation can be described as being infinitely wrong.  Being mistaken is inevitable at some point.  If someone gives 100% or 0%, that's associated with them being very bad at forecasting.

I expect a lot of the downvotes are people noticing that you gave it 0%, and that's strong evidence you're very uncalibrated as a forecaster.  For what it's worth, I'm in the highscores on Metaculus, and I'd interpret that signal the same way.

Skimming a couple seconds more, I suspect the overall essay's writing style doesn't really explain how the material changes our probability estimate.  This makes the essay seem indistinguishable from confused/irrelevant arguments about the forecast.  For example if I try skim reading the Conclusion section, I can't even tell if the essay's topics really change the probability that human jobs can be done by some computer for $25/hr or less (that's the criteria from the original prize post [EA · GW]).

I have no reason not to think you were being genuine, and you are obviously knowledgeable.  I think a potential productive next step could be if you consulted someone with a forecasting track record, or read Philip Tetlock's stuff.  The community is probably reacting to red flags about calibration, and (possibly) a writing style that doesn't make it clear how this updates the forecast.

Heavy down votes in less than a day, most likely from the title alone. I can't bring myself to vote up or down because I'm not clear on your argument. Most of what you are saying supports AGI as sooner rather than later (that DL just needs that little bit extra, which should have won this crowd over). I don't see any arguments to support the main premise. 

*I stated that the AGI clock doesn't even start as long as ML/DL remains the de facto method, but that isn't what they want to hear either.