I don't find AGI to be a useful technical term, as nobody can agree on what it means. For instance, you used it at least five times here, but you never defined

I don't find AGI to be a useful technical term, as nobody can agree on what it means. For instance, you used it at least five times here, but you never defined it, and I could point to intellectually credible people who would say we've already reached AGI. Anyway, if we put the AGI framing aside, I think the main point you're making is that AI mathematics hasn't yet demonstrated the ability to theory-build in the way that the great human mathematicians have (Grothendieck, Scholze, etc.). And I'd agree with you on that. Where we disagree, I suppose, is I think that capability is coming -- I don't see anything that would prevent its development.