This doesn't feel like it will age well.
We still don't know exactly how the human brain works. But what we do know is that it is analog and not digital.
Some speculate it may even be quantum in nature. And we know that quantum can address problems that are intractable with digital computation.
For all we know, "intelligence" could be an inherent attribute of the universe that is being manifested somehow in the human brain.
In the context of existing AI "computational" models, it does. It's all we've got.
And even if we're talking about things that don't exist yet (let's just say "quantum computers" since they're still sort of experimental).. if one is making a universal claim[5] like "AGI is intrinsically computationally intractable" you can't just ignore the possibility of computing techniques that don't exist yet, but could. You need to show that it. cannot. be. done.[6] And my feeling is that the authors of the linked paper have not done so.
[1]: https://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/InTheNews/1989_CD1.pdf
[2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.06365
[3]: http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/psgz/boser-92.ps.gz
[4]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sorin-Draghici-2/public...
[5]: and just to reiterate, this is part of my problem with this paper. In places they seem to be making that stronger universal claim, in other places they seem to be making a weaker claim that is constrained by some notion of "in the near term." Since it's hard to say what they're even arguing, it's hard to put much stock in their work to my way of thinking.
[6]: OK, to be fair "intractable" can be interpreted as just "really really hard" not necessarily "impossible". But in this context, saying "we've proved that Thing X is really hard" doesn't seem like a very interesting claim, so I interpret the authors' intent as being to say that it's effectively impossible. But I'll allow that I could be misinterpreting their claim.