Most human systems are much, much, much more complicated than most closed world games (which is where RL approaches have seen massive success, mostly through self-play).
Like LLMs are great, but I honestly can't see us getting actual general intelligence out of them.
I think maybe you mean superintelligence, which is a more fair critique.
Can you share the metrics you are using for this assessment?
They are really powerful tools, but a quick glance at their thinking tokens (which is a bad name, tbh) rapidly disabuses me of the notion that they are general intelligences.
They possess large amounts of crystallised intelligence (i.e. they have a lot of knowledge), but their fluid intelligence is definitely lower than the human median.
It feels like we have collectively goal-post shifted the definition of AGI to be closer to that of ASI.
One of those "what do you call a doctor who graduated at the bottom of their class" type things. I think despite their genuine deficits (and there are many), frontier LLMs have basically cleared the minimum AGI bar.
Though I realize a lot of people don't agree with this take :)