AI's "think" like planes "fly" and submarines "swim".
Does it matter if a plane experiences flight the way an eagle does if it still gets you from LA to New York in a few hours?
Let's start with the fact that AGI is not a well defined or agreed upon term of reference.
The evidence for this is that nobody can agree on what actually requires intelligence, other than there is seemingly broad belief among people that if a computer can do it, then it doesn't.
If you can't point at some activity and say: "There, this absolutely requires intelligence, let there be zero doubt that this entity possesses it", then it's not measurable and probably doesn't exist.
If your claim is, "AGI's "think" like planes "fly" and submarines "swim".
You only get to make that claim with confidence if you've invented an AGI.
Language is an extremely roundabout way to understanding.
I am conjecturing
1. that solely relying on written artifacts by produced by humans has some upper bound on the amount of knowledge that can be represented.
2. that language is an inefficient representation of human knowledge. It’s redundant and contains inaccuracies. Using written artifacts is not the shortest path to learning.
For example, take mathematics. It’s not sufficient to read a ton of math literature to effectively learn math. There’s a component of discovery that comes from e.g attempting to write a proof that can’t be replaced by reading all of the proofs that already exist.
Anyway I would take all this with a giant grain of salt.
There are all kinds of tasks that AI's are better at than most people.