Yeah. We'll be arguing "is it really AGI" for many more years. Meanwhile, everyone interesting is going to have moved on from that question, choosing to spend time on "who cares if it's AGI, can it do $foo", for whatever value of $foo is interesting to them. Whether the machine is folding clothes or folding proteins, AGI isn't well defined other than "I'll know it when I see it", so whether or not it's AGI, the question is what job is the machine capable of and is it cheaper than a human? A humanoid robot that can work a warehouse is not putting anyone out of a job if it costs a billion dollars, and neither is a digital AI employee that costs the company a billion dollars either.

Current LLMs don't pass the turing test.

Remember, the interrogator is allowed to be hostile, so they would obviously employ all known prompt injections and typical LLM 'gotchas' to figure out who the AI is.

So where are the androids? If it's AGI, why is it used as a tool, waiting to be prompted or executed by humans? Where is Skynet? Military applications still rely on human operators.

Robotics is advancing a bit slower, but is making progress as well.

Yes, but unlike a lot of science fiction, robots, LLMs and other AI remain tools for human use. Augmented Intelligence would have been the more accurate word for real world AI.

I doubt LLMs will give us full embodied intelligence that science fiction androids have. Maybe some other approach. But I suspect for the forseable future LLMs, robots and other AI methods will remain tools, not independent agents like Star Trek Data or Skynet.

VLAs are new LLMs. Give them 5 years to develop. But even good old LLMs are still improving every six months.