This seems overly pessimistic.

I may personally be of modest intelligence, but to acquire the intelligence that I do have, I did not need to train on every book ever written, every Wikipedia article ever written, every blog post ever written, every reference manual ever written, every line of code ever written, and so on. In fact, I didn't train on even 1% of those materials, or even 0.00000000001% of those. The texts themselves were demonstrably not a prerequisite for intelligence.

At minimum, given that it only took me about 20 years of casual observation of my surroundings to approximate intelligence, this is proof positive that the only "dataset" you need is a bunch of sensors and the world around you.

And yes, of course, the human brain does not start from zero; it had a few million years of evolution to produce a fertile plot for intelligence to take root. But that fundamental architecture is fairly generic, and does not at all seem predicated on any sort of specific training set. You could feasibly evolve it artificially.

What does this even have to do with the parent? Your capabilities have nothing to do with LLM capabilities. The two work in completely different ways. The reason LLMs work is because they are huge and have been trained on vast amounts of data, full stop. Sure, there's potential someday to get something useful using less data, but we aren't there.

You're also embodied and experiencing the world around you with more senses than only the ability to read text.