> Let's get the big one out of the way: generative AI will not lead to AGI.

I don't see how the author addresses the viability of this claim in the paragraphs that follow. For instance, whether or not an LLM hallucinates isn't what matters. What matters is whether it makes fewer mistakes than humans across a broad set of cognitive tasks.

Also, under the given definition, we only require that an AGI outperforms humans, which is strictly a question of capability. The mechanism by which it's achieved or whether we deem it "intelligent" seems irrelevant, so it's unclear to me what the purpose of the calculator analogy was.

That's my least favorite part about clankers. Gives you a wrong answer. You point it out. Clanker responds by saying something like, it's not wrong, $X is the load-bearing deciding factor. Now that I know $X...

Motherfucker, I clearly mentioned $X in the fucking initial prompt!