Isn't any formal "proof" or "reasoning" that shows that something cannot be AGI inherently flawed, because we have a hard time formally describing what AGI is anyway.

Like your argument: embodiment is missing in LLMs, but is it needed for AGI? Nobody knows.

I feel we first have to do a better job defining the basics of intelligence, we can then define what it means to be an AGI, and only then can we prove that something is, or is not, AGI.

It seems that we skipped step 1 because its too hard, and jumped straight to step 3.