Comment by globnomulous

It's being downvoted, I think, for a few reasons:

* The person who posted it likely posted it not as an out-of-date paper but as an interesting idea. Your comment ignores the idea and focuses on what you're calling its out-of-dateness.

* You say "this has been solved" without defining what "this" is.

* Your description of the solution -- different effort levels -- seems to indicate that you misunderstand the idea that the paper is proposing. If I understand their proposal, it's that the system itself decides how to reason based on the nature of the problem it faces, given the model's world model and past experience. "Effort" isn't so much the issue as types of effort using different systems, modeled specifically after Kahneman's idea of fast and slow thinking.

* The title is an allusion to a book by Daniel Kahneman. The brisk dismissal without acknowledging the idea or the history doesn't leave a good impression, even if I'm mistaken and you're right.

In short, Hacker News readers tend to reward depth and detail (the FAQ specifically encourages thoughtful contributions and explicitly discourages dismissal). Your comment doesn't provide them, and it appears to make a mistake that further undermines its value as a contribution to discussion.