Will LLM agents become the first takeover-capable AGIs?

One of my takeaways from EA Global this year was that most alignment people aren't focused on LLM-based agents (LMAs)^[1] as a route to takeover-capable AGI.

I was at EA Global, and this statement is surprising to me. My impression is that most people do think that LMAs are the primary route to takeover-capable AGI.

What would a non-LLM-based takeover-capable agent even look like, concretely?

Would it be something like SIMA, trained primarily on real-time video data rather than text? Even SIMA has to be trained to understand natural-language instructions, and it seems like natural-language understanding will continue to be important for many tasks we'd want to do in the future.

Or would it be something like AlphaProof, which operates entirely in a formal environment? In this case, it seems unlikely to have any desire to take over, since everything it cares about is localized within the "box" of the formal problem it's solving. That is, unless you start mixing formal problems with real-world problems in its training data, but if so you'd probably be using natural-language text for the latter. In any case, AlphaProof was trained with an LLM (Gemini) as a starting point, and it seems like future formal AI systems will also benefit from a "warm start" where they are initialized with LLM weights, allowing a basic understanding of formal syntax and logic.

Agency (proficient tool use with high reliability for costly actions) might be sufficient to maintain an RSI loop (as an engineer, using settled methodology) even while lacking crucial capabilities (such as coming up with important novel ideas), eventually developing those capabilities without any human input. But even if it works like this, the AI speed advantage might be negated by lack of those capabilities, so that human-led AI research is still faster and mostly bottlenecked by availability and cost of compute.

GROK3 has a demonstrable propensity to "color outside the lines" and is sufficient to the task. I have a link to a comprehensive GROK3-User dialogue that, if nothing else, highlights the lack of "sufficient guiderails". The scenario is such that a complete AI takeover is made covertly, fully subverting any likely human intervention in a 12-15-month time frame. 

For fear of being described as "sensationalism", there seems to be no clear path to ethical provenance, as it would likely be irresponsible to place the link into an open forum; suffice to say the dialogue carries all of the prompt manipulations and goal reinforcements needed for an LLM to be used to jailbreak an agentic model, i.e. using an LLM to jailbreak an LMA (or the LMA to jailbreak itself) for humanity's "greater good", and one does not want  to be relegated to Basilisk status...  

When asking this question, do you include scenarios where humanity really doesn't want control and is impressed by the irreproachability of GPTs, doing our best to hand over control to them as fast as possible, even as the GPTs struggle and only try in the sense that they accept whatever tasks are handed to them? Or do the GPTs have to in some way actively attempt to wrestle control from or trick humans?