> Similarly, AGI is much smarter for a set of tasks, but it still requires humans to generate value. LLMs are astounding/fascinating in what they are able to do

> Similarly, AGI is much smarter for a set of tasks, but it still requires humans to generate value. LLMs are astounding/fascinating in what they are able to do, but they don’t replace employees end-to-end (except for a few niche industries). What you're describing sounds like an early iteration of AGI. But unless we stop the research, progress will continue and the limited AGI you describe is not where things will stop. LLMs are not AGI, and their limits are unsurprising as such. But the limits of LLMs are not informative about the broader concerns of an eventual AGI. In each of your descriptions you've limited the scope of what an AGI can accomplish, but those limitations need to be justified. If we continue to iterate, and especially if there's ever a moment where the computers surpass our own understanding, there is no reason to believe that those limits you imply are absolute.