How does this account for new information and changing environments? In a real-world setting, respondents are constantly updating themselves, whether consciously or not, by interacting with people, their communities, or their representatives.
Unless models are updated by attending town halls, interacting with communities, gaining some kind of lived experience to shape a view point, or something else I haven’t thought of, then I am unsure how robust this approach may be to a changing landscape.
The right state of mind isn't, "what about all these reasons this stupid AI approach is flawed," it's "what will society be like when this stupid AI approach inevitably happens because party A profits from selling it while party B saves money from buying it?"
A discovery that AGI is impossible in principle to implement in an electronic computer would require a major fundamental discovery in physics that answers the question “what is the brain doing in order to implement general intelligence?”