[Jensson]

> The question was, how you do that?

And I answered, we don't know how you do that which is why we don't currently.

> Personally I'm convinced that we'll never reach any kind of AGI with LLM. They are lacking any kind of model about the world that can be used to reason about. And the concept of reasoning.

Well, for some definition of LLM we probably could. But probably not the way they are architected today. There is nothing stopping a large language model to add different things to its training steps to enable new reasoning.

> What is my interpretation?

Well, I read your post as being on the other side. I believe it is possible to make a model that can reason about truthiness, but I don't think current style LLMs will lead there. I don't know exactly what will take us there, but I wouldn't rule out an alternate way to train LLMs that looks more like how we teach students in school.