The opening few pages of this read like they were written by somebody with an axe to grind, which makes me suspicious of the rest. Why? Well because having an "

The opening few pages of this read like they were written by somebody with an axe to grind, which makes me suspicious of the rest. Why? Well because having an "axe to grind" may motivate one to start with a conclusion and go looking for ways to justify it. And you can almost always talk yourself into believing you've proven something you already really want to believe. "But mindcrime, there's a mathematical proof. How can you argue with math?" To be fair, I didn't read their entire proof. I skimmed some bits of it, and while I can't say it's wrong I didn't find it very convincing at first blush. My initial read left me thinking that the proof rests on some assumptions that may be unfounded and which may not hold up. Some of my skepticism may also be rooted in the way the paper seemed to weave back and forth between claiming to show that "AGI is computationally intractable" and "AGI is unachievable in the short-term". Those are two substantially different arguments and it's still not clear to me which the authors were really aiming for. I dunno. I gave up before getting through it all. I'll wait to see if others find it compelling and decide whether or not it's worth going back to. Also, see earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689558