The idea that we ought to have a better philosophical underpinning for AGI makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately the author blows past this and starts making a lo

The idea that we ought to have a better philosophical underpinning for AGI makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately the author blows past this and starts making a lot of tortured claims that don't entirely make sense. The example of years that started with 20s seemed quite odd. Given the easiest way to understand numbers at least for me is inductively. Of course if you lop off a bunch of information such as the digits after 20 or 19 it sounds like an impossible problem.