"Though the infinitesimal definition of utility in (1) and the penalisation of complexity in the definition of Υ provide a statistically robust measure of the k

"Though the infinitesimal definition of utility in (1) and the penalisation of complexity in the definition of Υ provide a statistically robust measure of the kind of surrogate intelligence those working in the general artificial intelligence (AGI) field have decided to focus on, the definition is too weak to describe or specify the behaviour even of an arthropod. This is not only obvious from the issues already mentioned above, but also from the fact that algorithms which realise the reward-schemes proposed in (1) and (2) (for example, neural networks optimised with reinforcement learning) fail to display the type of generalisable adaptive behaviour to natural environments that arthropods are capable of, for example when ants or termites colonise a house." Ok, I don't like the mathematical definitions of intelligence either (although I might be convincable and they do have some advantages over other definitions I've seen), but this refutation seems to be a prime example of proof-by-assertion. "Brooks defines an AI agent, again, as an artefact that is able ‘to move around in dynamic environments, sensing the surroundings to a degree sufficient to achieve the necessary maintenance of life and reproduction'." And this definition implies many things we know to be intelligent (i.e. people) are not. So there's that. "There are three additional properties of logic systems of importance for our argument here: 1. Their phase space is fixed. 2. Their behaviour is ergodic with regard to their main functional properties. 3. Their behavior is to a large extent context-independent." Aaaaand here we go... "As we learn from we standard mathematical theory of complex systems [23], all such systems, including the systems of complex systems resulting from their interaction, 1. have a variable phase space, 2. are non-ergodic, and 3. are context-dependent." Ok, to the extent that the first statement is true about "logic systems", it is also true about any physically realizable, material system. On the other hand, the "complex system", to that same extent, is not physically realizable. (Consider "a variable phase space means that the variables which define the elements of a complex system can change over time" or "a non-ergodic system produces erratic distributions of its elements. No matter how long the system is observed, no laws can be deduced from observing its elements." and question how much information is required for this in the authors' sense.) And there we have the intrusion of the immortal soul into the argument that artificial intelligence is impossible.