[celdon25]

I wish authors like these would put a bit more effort and research into these posts. There's a big gap between something being clickbait and something being worthy of the title heading they dared to slap on it. This post probably harmed AGI research more than it helped.

The author shows profound naivety by listing these in supposed "progressive difficulty" order, without evidence of such, all the while proclaiming that such a list is more important than the AGI itself. And I'm curious about why this was decided to be published in groups that are known for readers that are AGI-aware but AGI-laymen nonetheless. It's wonderful that more people are reading about AGI in 2022. Great stuff. But please don't waste those gains on this drivel.

If you want to read about AGI, there are better places for that: http://agi-conf.org/2022/accepted-papers/

[ryanwaggoner]

It’s a blog post. If a random blog post on HN is all it takes to harm AGI research, it wasn’t going anywhere anyway.

[juliusgeo]

While it is a blog post, I think their concern that it could muddy the waters persists regardless. Your statement seems to imply that if it was a worthwhile idea it would not harmed by mischaracterization, which doesn’t make much sense to me.