[wddkcs]

>these models are 'pre-trained' and AGI may be a result of a more dynamic knowledge base

Why couldn't the knowledge base be used in conjunction with the LLM? As the GP said, why can't LLM's gain sentience or be finagled into sentience with a wrapper'. The Knowledge base you're describing is the wrapper.

>Andrej also suggests that an attribute of a more advanced AI would have the ability to ask it to spend longer thinking to get a better answer, like a chess engine.

This is another method that is already being deployed with LLMs. So the question stands, why won't LLMs be the foundation for nearing AGI?

For my money, LLMs likely are that base. AI Experts are either too shy from the memory of AI winters past to see the nose on their faces, or too busy developing paradigm breaking models to care. Regardless of what Chomsky or any other 'expert' says should be possible, the practical results of LLM growth are literally speaking for themselves.

Maybe we should have suspected a 'large language game' to be the catalyst for AGI from the start. Was human intelligence truly general before we developed language? Could it be general without it?