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.