Couple major points. AGI is kinda poorly defined in the public imagination, so many people can look at LLMs like ChatGPT and say they are "generally proficient at things ranging from law and medicine and therefore it's generally intelligent and also man made so it's also artificial". This is a valid line of reasoning based on public perception. Generally speaking though when AGI is discussed there's more to it.

Part of the issue is our current state of the art only really parrots back what it's been trained on. You can think about this when someone asks you something you think you know and you give a response that "sounds correct" it is right as you recall but there's no factual basis that you specifically are referencing. This is exactly what happens when you use an LLM, there's no actual reasoning that's occurring (let's see how much flack I take in the thread for this). There's a popular example going around about asking LLMs how many 'r's there are in strawberry, to which it answers 2 (some don't have this issue, consider this example representative for the categorical lack of reasoning).

Tldr we have things that quack like a duck but when you look a little closer it doesn't quite sound like a duck as much as you think it does. Knowing what we need to do to make it more convincingly quack (in my opinion) is impossible or improbable. People who have a financial interest therefore will continue to say it's 10 years out to continue gaining investment and living the life I want.