I think you’re overly fixated on some minor points relative to the overall utility on offer here. And also skewing the facts a bit. For example at one point you quote the OP on words that were never said as far as I can see. At another point, you characterize their position as “replacing deep learning entirely” which, as far as I can tell, has never been advocated for in this comment thread or on behalf of ARC.
That is an understandable statement, and probably fair as well I feel.
Much of this comes in reference to statements from fchollet w.r.t. replacing deep learning -- around the time of the initial prize, with a lot of the much more hype marketing, this was essentially the thru-line that was used, and it left a bitter taste in a number of peoples' mouths. W.r.t. misquoting, they did say that we needed something "beyond" deep learning, not "other than" here, and that is on me.
The utility is certainly still present, if I feel diminished, and it probably is a case of my own frustrations due to previous similar issues leading up to the ARC prize.
That being said, I do agree in retrospect that my response skewed from being objective -- it is a benchmark with a mixed history, but that doesn't mean that I should get personally caught up in it.
