[joshuamorton]

To be frank, your comment history has all the hallmarks of a crank[1]. Specifically, points 10, 9, 7 and 6, although there's also evidence of 2 and 8. Now I could be wrong, but convincing me of that would take a demonstration, or at least explicitly describing the capabilities of your agi.

[1]: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304

[nl]

After the constant invitations to check that poster’s comment history, I did, and you are correct in your assessment.

For example, they claim to have invented an AGI themselves. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16461258

It’s unfortunate that in this field it’s possible to write so much before people realise.

[s1dechnl]

Old foundations are meant to be redefined/invalidate by new. - Complexity theory - Computational Theory - Graph Theory Are all subsets of Information theory. They're approaches/frames. New ones can be created that invalidate the established limits imposed by others.

Everything is possible until proven. Given how little attribution is paid to people who break through fundamental aspects of understanding and given how much politics and favoring is played in publications/academic circles, one who doesn't have standing in such circles would be a fool to openly resolve some of the most outstanding and fundamental aspects of the problems that plague them. I've read about and watched a number of individuals with proven track records and contributions to science/technology be marginalized, exploited and written off. I've watch a number of corporations exploit such individuals works w/ no attribution or established recognition beyond a footnote. I've watched the world attempt to suggest such inventions/establishments come via mechanisms and institutions that they do not. So, I know better this time around as to what to do w/ my works.

Just about every person who contributes fundamentally to the world is called a crank at some point it in time. It conveys the huge disconnect the average and even prestigious individual has with reality and/or the attempts they make to reframe it to fit their purpose, narrative, standing..

My comment history has yet to receive any remarks that refute its establishments beyond down votes. It stands alone in this manner as will the foundational establishment of AGI.

http://nautil.us/issue/21/information/the-man-who-tried-to-r...

[nl]

You comments don't receive any refutation because they make vague unfalsifiable claims.

You claim you have invented an AGI, but won't show anyone.

I say you are making it up. Falsify that.