The arbitrary vs fixed precision people are also totally clueless.
All of the arbitrary precision papers should have been rejected. This is CS theory 101. Any non-trivial architecture is not just Turing complete, it can perform hypercomputation (solving the halting problem), if it can use arbitrary precision numbers.
> Any non-trivial architecture is not just Turing complete, it can perform hypercomputation (solving the halting problem), if it can use arbitrary precision numbers.
Can you explain this part? (It doesn't seem like CS theory 101 to me - maybe 201).
I suppose that I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "use arbitrary precision numbers". TMs can use arbitrary precision numbers (integers and rationals) and they can't solve the halting problem, so you must mean something different.
If what you say is true (I don't really know anything about transformers), then that reflects rather poorly on the field that such wrong results would end up being published.
All of the arbitrary precision papers should have been rejected. This is CS theory 101. Any non-trivial architecture is not just Turing complete, it can perform hypercomputation (solving the halting problem), if it can use arbitrary precision numbers.