And still, Yann LeCun (head of AI at Meta, renowned AI/ML researcher) is convinced that we are far from reaching AGI. He makes convincing arguments, especially around the fact that we are not able to expose models to the amount of redundant information that even a young kid is exposed to.
I guess we'll see some shifting goals around "what is even AGI". You say the we'll have soon "models that most of us consider AGI today", but what does that even mean?
The point from Yann LeCun I find interesting is the negative space argument where as training data / parameters increase, the "best" next tokens represent a smaller and smaller slice of the model. His contention is therefore more hallucinations, more places to get stuck on some less best next tokens, etc and interesting to think about this as the opposite of how scaling laws are typically presented. A lot of smart people stabbing around in the dark right now and only time (and gazillions in GPUs) will tell.
They are trained on a ridiculously small amount of content compared to what the brain of a 3 years child is subject to. Current models still have a very narrow application field compared to what a human can achieve.
I guess we'll see some shifting goals around "what is even AGI". You say the we'll have soon "models that most of us consider AGI today", but what does that even mean?