I'm not sure that "formal language use" means what you think it means.

Moreover, it's (ironically enough) naïve to presume that ChatGPT is a "huge" step toward AGI when all it is is a very good narrow AI (yes, plausible dialog is still a narrow task. It denotes a skill and skills aren't general intelligence). You wouldn't say that AlphaZero was a huge step on the path to AGI because it was so much better than Stockfish at the time. Why is it then different once dialog is involved ?

I'm glad to see another fan of Popper and Deutsch in the midst of this sea of arrogantly confident errors about intelligence, AGI, knowledge,...

Seeing so many people here parrot the kind of misconceptions that are so prevalent in the field, I'm beginning to really understand Deutsch's arguments in his "Why has AGI not been created yet?" video at a deeper level.

It's as if the people supposedly interested in bringing about AGI, had decided to choose one of the worst epistemological framework they could find to get there (certainly worse than Popper's epistemology), then proceeded to lock themselves out of any error-correction mechanism in that regard. Now they're all wondering why their AIs can't generalize well, can't learn in an open-ended fashion, struggle with curiosity, suck at abductive reasoning... and for that matter, even deduction (since finding good proofs requires a serious dose of abduction), are data hungry...