They aren't relevant. Even if Penrose and Lucas were right (they aren't), a computational system can solve the vast majority of the problems we would want solved.

P.S. I don't know which argument is allegedly "a bait and switch argument" .... certainly not mine. Even if Penrose and Lucas were right (again, they aren't--Godel's Theorems are in PA and can be proved by existing machines), that would not be a barrier to achieving AGI because being able to "see" the validity Godel's theorems is not a necessary condition for being an AGI.

P.P.S. Oh, I just noticed that the response came from the same person who wrote "won’t somebody please think about Mr. Godel, and the Incompleteness Theorem ?"

I will simply observe that isn't any sort of argument.

seems like a bait-n-switch argument here.

we are talking explicitly about a.g.i here, not debating if the computer can solve a majority of problems or not.

the two things can be true at the same time.