> Proof of impossibility does exist in logic:
In logic, sure. But we're not living in a system of formal logic. We're living in a very messy world, full of physics, chemistry, and even (shudder) biology.
Here's the important question:
What would you consider to be sufficient proof that AGI is impossible?
Like, hypothetically. Doesn't even have to be based on any of the current facts on the ground in our universe. What facts or arguments could possibly convince you that this is not something that can ever happen?
If the answer is "nothing that I can think of", then you're asking other people to provide something you can't even define.
(If the answer is "nothing, definitely", then that means AGI is, for you, unfalsifiable, and essentially falls into the same category as religion.)
> Is it possible to create artificial intelligence? Unarguably yes. Is it possible for human-level intelligence to exist? Unarguably yes.
And here, you're falling victim to the ambiguity in human language (or, at least, in English).
"Intelligence" is not a clearly-defined word in this context, and while you seem to be presenting it as meaning the same thing in those two sentences, I would claim that it does not.
In the second sentence, it is clear that it is intended to mean "thinking intelligently, in a manner and to a degree similarly to humans".
In the first sentence, it cannot mean anything about "thinking in the same manner as humans," because you are talking about "artificial intelligences" that have already been created, and none of them think in anything like the same manner as humans. The difference between existing "artificial intelligences" and either humans or a hypothetical AGI is a difference in kind, not in degree, and you (and many others) gloss over that when you talk about "artificial intelligence" in one breath and "human-level intelligence" in the next.
Saying that all we need to do is keep going on the same track we're on with LLMs and similar "AI" programs, and we'll very soon (or ever!) reach AGI, is very like saying all we need to do to solve NP-hard problems in P-time is to throw more hardware at it. Sure, you'll get faster at doing the thing you're doing, but without some hitherto-unforeseen breakthrough (proving P=NP in the latter case; figuring out how to make AGI in the former), you'll never bridge a difference of kind by increasing the degree of effort.