The paper is fine. It doesn't "prove" anything. But it does show along with other recent insights that people who have a testable definition of general intellig

The paper is fine. It doesn't "prove" anything. But it does show along with other recent insights that people who have a testable definition of general intelligence that is inclusive of humans and say 4 isn't don't have any leg to stand on. The biggest indicator that we have something here is that no one wants to argue results anymore because then the arguments fall apart. Suddenly it's "4 isn't AGI because it isn't doing "real" reasoning" instead of "4 isn't AGI because it can't do this intelligent task all humans can"