> we would have called it AGI.

This an absurdly circular argument. You are simply asserting that, if we had had today's systems 4 years ago, we would have would have called them AGI, even those who don't call them that today.

> Now I don't know if what we have is AGI or not

But you just asserted that we do.

> I do not understand how you can see what has happened in the last 3 years and say "it will not get us there"

They explained how. Your argument, OTOH, is nonsensical, like suggesting that, because a bike path was built rapidly, it will soon become a highway.