What's wrong with that? Most likely, the discussion coming from various people has more value than any single article, unless it's something truly phenomenal.
I had already just about dismissed HN as a place for any serious discussion of AI for a multitude of reasons. After seeing this I think I will be hammering in the final nail.
It has already been known for decades that arbitrarily precise approximations of mathematical formulations of AGI are computable. I was expecting nothing less than a refutation of that work from this based on the title. Unfortunately the first page alone makes it apparent that it is not, nor likely even a serious work of mathematics.