[Lerc]

It's not hardcoded, reissbaker has addressed this point.

I think you are misinterpreting what the argument is.

The argument being made is that LLMs are mere 'stochastic parrots' and therefore cannot lead to AGI. The analogy to Russell's teapot is that someone is claiming that Russells teapot is not there because china cannot exist in the vacuum of space. You can disprove that with a single counterexample. That does not mean the teapot is there, but it also doesn't mean it isn't.

It is also hard to prove that something is thinking. It is also very difficult to prove that something is not thinking. Almost all arguments against AGI take the form X cannot produce AGI because Y. Those are disprovable because you can disprove Y.

I don't think anyone is claiming to have a proof that an LLM will produce AGI, just that it might. If they actually build one, that too counts as a counterexample to anybody saying they can't do it.