4 ms·

[flagged]

raincole 1y ago
It's just a typical crackpot paper like those math enthusiasts who self-claimed to prove Goldbach's conjecture or disprove special relativity. If it's not obvious enough, see the author's comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350876 This post proves an interesting theory though: even the most random thing can get traction on HN as long as it mentions AI.
- woolion 1y ago
  A lot of people see a title that is "subject I want to discuss" and jump to the comment section without even bothering to look at the link. There has been a lot AI hype, so counter-hypists are starved from content and just jumped on the first "confirmation bias title" they could find. Thank you for the comment, "typical crackpot" feels a bit light considering how unhinged that is.
  - anal_reactor 1y ago
    What's wrong with that? Most likely, the discussion coming from various people has more value than any single article, unless it's something truly phenomenal.
    - woolion 1y ago
      I never said it was wrong, nor right. In fact, you might even read that as an excuse for "counter-hypists", as it's a pretty bad look to upvote such a low-quality submission. And I've made my own fun of AGI hype, but with knowledge of the fact that brevity is the fool of wit.
      - Mr_Minderbinder 1y ago
        > ...as it's a pretty bad look to upvote such a low-quality submission. I had already just about dismissed HN as a place for any serious discussion of AI for a multitude of reasons. After seeing this I think I will be hammering in the final nail. It has already been known for decades that arbitrarily precise approximations of mathematical formulations of AGI are computable. I was expecting nothing less than a refutation of that work from this based on the title. Unfortunately the first page alone makes it apparent that it is not, nor likely even a serious work of mathematics.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
smukherjee19 1y ago
Agree on the formatting. Also, not using LaTeX, when it is pretty much a standard in this field.
triknomeister 1y ago
https://philpeople.org/profiles/max-m-schlereth https://philpeople.org/profiles/max-m-schlereth Crackpot.
- vixen99 1y ago
  i.e., IDC - information-free_comment. Thankfully comments on HN are mostly not in this category. You may well be correct but it would interesting to see where in your reading you made this decision.
  - donkeybeer 1y ago
    This is a very useful comment. It shows this person is supposedly a doctorate in "Social and Economic Sciences", not in mathematics, physics or engineering.

[flagged]

It's just a typical crackpot paper like those math enthusiasts who self-claimed to prove Goldbach's conjecture or disprove special relativity. If it's not obvious enough, see the author's comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350876 This post proves an interesting theory though: even the most random thing can get traction on HN as long as it mentions AI.

woolion 1y ago
A lot of people see a title that is "subject I want to discuss" and jump to the comment section without even bothering to look at the link. There has been a lot AI hype, so counter-hypists are starved from content and just jumped on the first "confirmation bias title" they could find. Thank you for the comment, "typical crackpot" feels a bit light considering how unhinged that is.
- anal_reactor 1y ago
  What's wrong with that? Most likely, the discussion coming from various people has more value than any single article, unless it's something truly phenomenal.
  - woolion 1y ago
    I never said it was wrong, nor right. In fact, you might even read that as an excuse for "counter-hypists", as it's a pretty bad look to upvote such a low-quality submission. And I've made my own fun of AGI hype, but with knowledge of the fact that brevity is the fool of wit.
    - Mr_Minderbinder 1y ago
      > ...as it's a pretty bad look to upvote such a low-quality submission. I had already just about dismissed HN as a place for any serious discussion of AI for a multitude of reasons. After seeing this I think I will be hammering in the final nail. It has already been known for decades that arbitrarily precise approximations of mathematical formulations of AGI are computable. I was expecting nothing less than a refutation of that work from this based on the title. Unfortunately the first page alone makes it apparent that it is not, nor likely even a serious work of mathematics.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

smukherjee19 1y ago

Agree on the formatting. Also, not using LaTeX, when it is pretty much a standard in this field.

triknomeister 1y ago

https://philpeople.org/profiles/max-m-schlereth https://philpeople.org/profiles/max-m-schlereth Crackpot.

vixen99 1y ago
i.e., IDC - information-free_comment. Thankfully comments on HN are mostly not in this category. You may well be correct but it would interesting to see where in your reading you made this decision.
- donkeybeer 1y ago
  This is a very useful comment. It shows this person is supposedly a doctorate in "Social and Economic Sciences", not in mathematics, physics or engineering.