Hacker News Reader

Comment by somedude222 | Hacker News Reader

[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

This post proves an interesting theory though: even the most random thing can get traction on HN as long as it mentions AI.

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.

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.

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.

> ...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.

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

Crackpot.

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.

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com