<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Animats</author><text>Yes. Anything with finite memory is not Turing-complete, and transformers are finite-state machines. So what? Anything with infinite memory is un-buildable.&lt;p&gt;Yes, there&amp;#x27;s a school of philosophy that claims that AI cannot be built with digital hardware because it needs infinite state. Penrose is the leading exponent of this argument.[1] This isn&amp;#x27;t taken too seriously any more, now that finite machines are doing so well at AI.&lt;p&gt;This is close to theology. Man must be special, right? Only humans can play chess, right?  Play Go? Pass the Turing test? Create art and music? We&amp;#x27;re running out of boxes to check. Common sense (as in getting through the next 30 seconds without a major screwup) and manipulation in unstructured settings are still in bad shape, but we only need squirrel-level AI for that.&lt;p&gt;On that subject, there was a &amp;quot;what does the cerebellum do&amp;quot; article on HN a few days ago. That&amp;#x27;s a big issue. The lower mammal brains are mostly cerebellum. The weak areas in AI at present are mostly cerebellum functions. That area has never gotten enough attention in AI research. Today, though, the amount of hardware to do a low-end mammal cerebellum equivalent doesn&amp;#x27;t seem at all unreasonable.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;sortingsearching.com&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;18&amp;#x2F;roger-penrose-ai-skepticism.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;sortingsearching.com&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;18&amp;#x2F;roger-penrose-ai-ske...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>qsort</author><text>These reviews are &lt;i&gt;brutal&lt;/i&gt;. It&amp;#x27;s basically science-speak for &amp;quot;the paper is utter trash&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The main claim [...] is both somewhat obvious and previously already stated&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Many pieces of writing are overly assertive and inaccurate.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I do not think it deserves spending half a page demonstrating that {0^n 1^n} is not in the regular language.&amp;quot;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Turing Complete Transformers: Two Transformers Are More Powerful Than One</title><url>https://openreview.net/forum?id=MGWsPGogLH</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Cacti</author><text>These are just jokes with reviewers having some fun after doing 20 other reviews. The review process isn&amp;#x27;t really needed for a paper this bad, but they have to go through the motions, and so people have fun with it.&lt;p&gt;It’s not a big deal. Shitty papers exist.</text><parent_chain><item><author>qsort</author><text>These reviews are &lt;i&gt;brutal&lt;/i&gt;. It&amp;#x27;s basically science-speak for &amp;quot;the paper is utter trash&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The main claim [...] is both somewhat obvious and previously already stated&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Many pieces of writing are overly assertive and inaccurate.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I do not think it deserves spending half a page demonstrating that {0^n 1^n} is not in the regular language.&amp;quot;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Turing Complete Transformers: Two Transformers Are More Powerful Than One</title><url>https://openreview.net/forum?id=MGWsPGogLH</url></story>