Hassabis argues AGI isn't just about solving existing problems. True AGI must demonstrate the capacity for breakthrough creativity, like Einstein developing a new theory of physics or Picasso creating a new art genre. This sets a much higher bar than current systems.

Judea Pearl, a foundational figure in AI, argues that Large Language Models (LLMs) are not on a path to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). He states they merely summarize human-generated world models rather than discovering causality from raw data. He believes scaling up current methods will not overcome this fundamental mathematical limitation.

The popular concept of AGI as a static, all-knowing entity is flawed. A more realistic and powerful model is one analogous to a 'super intelligent 15-year-old'—a system with a foundational capacity for rapid, continual learning. Deployment would involve this AI learning on the job, not arriving with complete knowledge.

Today's AI models are powerful but lack a true sense of causality, leading to illogical errors. Unconventional AI's Naveen Rao hypothesizes that building AI on substrates with inherent time and dynamics—mimicking the physical world—is the key to developing this missing causal understanding.

Current AI can learn to predict complex patterns, like planetary orbits, from data. However, it struggles to abstract the underlying causal laws, such as Newtonian physics (F=MA). This leap to a higher level of abstraction remains a fundamental challenge beyond simple pattern recognition.

Simply making LLMs larger will not lead to AGI. True advancement requires solving two distinct problems: 1) Plasticity, the ability to continually learn without "catastrophic forgetting," and 2) moving from correlation-based pattern matching to building causal models of the world.

To make genuine scientific breakthroughs, an AI needs to learn the abstract reasoning strategies and mental models of expert scientists. This involves teaching it higher-level concepts, such as thinking in terms of symmetries, a core principle in physics that current models lack.

A Harvard study showed LLMs can predict planetary orbits (pattern fitting) but generate nonsensical force vectors when probed. This reveals a critical gap: current models mimic data patterns but don't develop a true, generalizable understanding of underlying physical laws, separating them from human intelligence.

Current LLMs fail at science because they lack the ability to iterate. True scientific inquiry is a loop: form a hypothesis, conduct an experiment, analyze the result (even if incorrect), and refine. AI needs this same iterative capability with the real world to make genuine discoveries.