4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoI 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.