> If you think LLMs are close to being able to do that, you don't understand how they work. I understand perfectly how they work, but you don't understand how

> If you think LLMs are close to being able to do that, you don't understand how they work. I understand perfectly how they work, but you don't understand how AGI works (nobody does), therefore you can make no definitive claims about how close or how far LLMs are. Which is exactly the point I made in my first post. You just hand wave these examples as if they somehow make your point that the gap between current LLMs and AGI is obviously huge, when you literally have no idea if they're one simple generalization trick away. Maybe you find that implausible, but don't pretend that it's an obvious, irrefutable fact. Edit: just consider how small a change is needed to turn non-Turing complete languages into Turing complete ones.