AGI Is Mathematically Impossible (3): Kolmogorov Complexity

At first I was thinking, let's see if an argument is made that is not applicable to GI, whether artificial or not, and if not, why even mention AI at all?

Then I started to read the paper, and it's worse.

Every one of his 'examples' would not just be 'solved' by any existing LLM, even a 'dumb' system that just spits out a random sentence to any question would pass his first 2 'tests' with flying colors. I'm not kidding, he accepts "Leave the classroom and stop confusing everybody with your senseless questions" as a good solution.

In fact, the only system that would fail is this hypothetical AI he imagines that somehow gets into infinitely analyzing loops.

Then his 3rd test, an investment decision, gives the same outcome as himself up until the point he draws in extra information not available to the AI, after which he flips his 'answer' which he then labels as 'correct' and the previous answer based on the original info as 'false' because he made some money on the bet a few weeks later, seriously?

The physics of our brains can in principle be simulated at a subatomic quantum level mathematically, even on a classical computer. It would be absurdly expensive and slow with current technology, but it is mathematically possible. Therefore our own generally intelligent brains can be considered a counterexample.

I think for your theory to hold up, you would need to show that physics cannot, even in principle, be simulated mathematically at sufficient scale (the number of interacting subatomic particles). That would be surprising.

At the moment it seems like your results contradict reality, meaning your starting assumptions cannot all be true.

That's kind of distinction with no distinction though, in this context. Our brains are physical machines, and computers are physical machines. Sure, one is wetware and based on chemistry, biology, and some electricity, while the other is based on electricity, logic gates, and bits and bytes, but still... if one can be intelligent, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason to think that the other can't as well.

there is a thing called quantum computing. So nope.

What I remember is that a lot of people used the word 'AI', other (including me) said 'thats not intelligence, it's too specific', and poof, a new word came to replace the word AI, 'AGI', to mean an AI that can adapt to new, unforseen situations.

The LLM that will convince me that AGI is near is one that will understand language enough to find the linguistic rules of conlangs they weren't trained on (or more specifically, engineered languages made by linguists with our current knowledge of how languages work), and create grammatically correct sentences. Something someone trained on can do with great effort, but it's more due to breaking habits and limited brainpower than real complexity.