I don't understand why you believe it must experience continuous time. If you had a system which clearly could reason, which could learn new tasks on its own, which didn't hallucinate any more than humans do, but it was only active for the period required for it to complete an assigned task, and was completely dormant otherwise, why would that dormant period disqualify it as AGI? I agree that such a system should probably not be considered conscious, but I think it's an open question whether or not consciousness is required for intelligence.

A consistent stateful experience may be needed, but not sure about continuous time. I mean human consciousness doesn't do that.

I try my best not to experience continuous time for at least eight hours a day.

Some good prompt-reply interactions are probably fed back in to subsequent training runs, so they're still stateful/have memory in a way, there's just a long delay.

You could imagine an LLM being called in a loop with a prompt like

You observe: {new input}

You remember: {from previous output}

React to this in the following format:

My inner thoughts: [what do you think about the current state]

I want to remember: [information that is important for your future actions]

Things I do: [Actions you want to take]

Things I say: [What I want to say to the user]

...

Not sure if that would qualify as an AGI as we currently define it. Given a sufficiently good LLM with good reasoning capabilities such a setup might be able to It would be able to do many of the things we currently expect AGIs to be able to do (given a sufficiently good LLM with good reasoning capabilities), including planning and learning new knowledge and new skills (by collecting and storing positive and negative examples in its "memory"). But its learning would be limited, and I'm sure as soon as it exists we would agree that it's not AGI