Why?

AGI = Artificial General Intelligence.

By definition we are not AGI. Maybe GI, but when the author has trouble articulating basic things they lose credibility and I lose interest.

With that pedantic an approach you are missing out on an otherwise fairly informative piece.

I think words matter and it's important that we all agree on the meaning if we want to convey ideas. My approach may be pedantic - but it also saves me from wasting my time reading an article that my be full of idiosyncrasies. It's okay if other people take a stab at parsing the article and/or derive value from it through.

I think the author may be taking the (unspoken) position that we are just a physical system, no cartesian dualism, so comparisons of scale (accepting that processing mechanisms are vastly different) may be relevant. So Broca’s and Wernicke’s may be the scale of current LLMs, but that leaves other mechanisms in our GI, like the rest of the brain + processing elsewhere eg: the gut - and the social dimension of intelligence, on the table. I still found it an interesting read - just for the scale discussion.