[bsenftner]

And yet, just like the majority of essays on AGI, that linked essay is a nice survey of history, but once that history is completed the author implies they are going to discuss the history of AGI construction attempts, but never does. The article transitions into personal theory and just peters out.

Perhaps I'm short sighted, but until we have some implementation capable theory of comprehension - that universal ability of humans to observe any phenomena and mentally deconstruct it into separate individual and independent driving forces that combine to create the observed phenomena - until we have an artificial comprehension algorithm all efforts towards AGI are futile.

[Shorel]

Reminds me of semiotics.

The essay talks about the ability of generating explanations. It affirms explanations are the basic building block of GI.

But an important intermediate step is also the ability of generating meanings. The AGI would say: "This observation implies something else, it implies this". Without an explanation why, at first there's only the relation between signified and signifier.

Maybe a first step into AGI is to add a semiotic framework, before adding an explanatory framework.

[ramraj07]

It’s likely folks like him and Hofstadter have thought long and hard about it and just haven’t found a viable theory or explanation yet and hence the conjecture. We need more extremely intelligent people thinking about it. Or maybe we don’t! But at least that’s the explanation I see as valid here.