AGI Beyond LLMs: Emerging Alternative Architectures

divyarakesh
Nov 6
8 min read

Over the past year, I’ve had countless discussions with peers and researchers around one question that refuses to fade — can Large Language Models (LLMs) truly lead us to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?

Recent surveys and expert analyses emphasize a pluralistic AGI roadmap beyond purely scaling. In particular, neurosymbolic hybrids, brain-inspired/neuromorphic systems, memory-augmented continuous-learning networks, cognitive architectures, and modular agentic frameworks have gained traction in 2024–2025 as potential AGI pathways.

These approaches integrate insights from human cognition (e.g. dual memory, working memory), neurobiology (spiking neurons, synaptic plasticity), and classical AI (symbolic reasoning, planning). Key players include major industry labs (IBM, Intel, Google, Meta), academic groups (MIT, Stanford, Columbia, USC, CMU), and startups (Emergent Mind, Numenta). Many agree that such hybrid and brain-inspired methods are needed to overcome LLM limitations – improving reasoning, efficiency, and lifelong.

Lets try and understand some of these approaches in this article.

Neurosymbolic Systems (Neural+Symbolic Hybrid AI)

Core idea: Combine neural networks with symbolic reasoning or logic. Examples include neural-symbolic program synthesizers, NeuroQL, and systems like Google’s AlphaGeometry, which uses a neural language model to guide a symbolic geometry. IBM, MIT’s LIDS, and DeepMind have active neurosymbolic research. The goal is to add structured reasoning and common-sense knowledge to neural.

Recent progress: A surge of research (hundreds of papers/year since 2020) has produced neuro-symbolic libraries, logic tensor networks, and models that embed logic constraints into learning. Notable projects include IBM/MIT’s neurosymbolic framework and NASA-backed research on symbolic knowledge bases for LLMs. Reviews note that neurosymbolic methods can “do more with less,” reducing data needs and improving explainability. For example, Google’s AlphaGeometry solved complex Olympiad problems via a hybrid NN+deduction approach.

Pros & Cons: Neurosymbolic AI offers better interpretability, consistency and generalization than pure deep nets. It can leverage logical rules and structures for complex reasoning. However, building scalable, general-purpose neuro-symbolic systems is hard: integrating logic and learning at scale remains largely an open problem Current systems often focus on narrow domains (e.g. math), and it’s debated how well they can learn broad world knowledge without massive engineering. Many experts (e.g. IBM researchers) still see neuro-symbolic AI as “a pathway to achieve AGI”, but note that significant R&D is needed to handle “meta-cognitive” aspects (self-monitoring reasoning) and to scale up.

Brain-Inspired & Neuromorphic Architectures

Core idea: Build hardware and algorithms that more closely mimic the brain’s structure and dynamics. This includes spiking neural networks (SNNs), neuromorphic chips, and analog/ionics-based circuits. Leading efforts: Intel’s Loihi chips and the new Hala Point system, IBM’s research on synaptic devices, China’s Tianjic hybrid chip, USC’s memristor neurons, and Numenta’s cortical learning theory. These systems incorporate local memory in silicon, event-driven computation, and plasticity (learning in hardware).

Figure: Neuromorphic chip implementing a “diffusive memristor” spiking neuron. USC researchers stacked memristors on a transistor to emulate analog brain-like neuron behavior.

Recent progress: Major hardware breakthroughs in 2024–25 aim to overcome AI’s energy wall. USC’s Yang Lab built analog spiking neurons using diffusive memristors, shrinking a neuron to a single-transistor footprint and requiring orders-of-magnitude less energy – “one step closer to mimicking natural intelligence”. Intel deployed Hala Point, the world’s largest neuromorphic system (1.15 billion simulated neurons). Hala Point (1,152 Loihi-2 chips) achieved ~20 peta-ops at 15 TOPS/W, rivaling GPUs in efficiency. Such platforms target real-time continuous learning, integrating memory and compute like the brain (minimizing data movement). Academic work likewise refines SNN algorithms and brain-like learning rules (Hebbian plasticity, dendritic computations).

Pros & Cons: Neuromorphic systems promise energy-efficient, event-driven intelligence closer to biological brains. They may enable devices that learn continuously from few examples (e.g. USC’s chips operate like brains on ions instead of electrons). Intel’s experts argue this hardware is needed to scale AI sustainably. However, neuromorphic hardware is still largely in the research phase. Current systems excel at low-power sensory tasks but lack the versatility and programmability of GPUs. It’s unclear when or if an AGI will emerge directly from spiking chips; much work remains on training algorithms and integrating neuromorphic cores with higher-level cognitive models.

Memory-Augmented & Continual-Learning Models

Core idea: Equip AI with persistent, structured memory (beyond volatile network weights) and mechanisms for lifelong learning. This spans both algorithmic memory networks and system architectures. For example, Differentiable Neural Computers (DNCs), Neural Turing Machines, and modern memory Transformers explicitly separate memory storage (long-term and episodic) from processing. Newer frameworks propose “AI-native memory” (tightly integrated with compute) to maintain context over time.

Recent progress: Memory networks remain a hot topic. Industry trends show incorporation of memory at multiple levels: Meta’s (non-LLM) memory cache, personal memory in digital assistants, and hierarchical memory OS ideas. Academic proposals include dual-memory architectures: e.g. the DUAL concept with fast (hippocampus-like) and slow (neocortex-like) memory streams. A recent architecture for “Personalized AGI” explicitly introduces synaptic pruning, Hebbian updates and complementary fast/slow learners to prevent catastrophic forgetting. Systems like “MemoryOS” and SecondMe organize short- and long-term memory modules for agents, improving coherence and continuity of behavior.

Pros & Cons: Augmented-memory AIs can generalize better over time and personalize to users. Persistent memory enables context beyond fixed training data and avoids wasteful retraining. As one blog notes, AI-native memory can store “semantically organized, inferred, or compressed knowledge” (not just raw data). This aids continual learning: agents can “externalize knowledge, adapt over time, and avoid catastrophic forgetting”. On the flip side, designing effective memory systems is complex. Issues include how to index, update, and reconcile memories, and how to prevent “memory hallucinations” (retrieving wrong info). While LLMs use retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), true memory-augmented AGI needs richer, dynamically updated memory. This is an active research area with frameworks still being tested, and no consensus “best” method has emerged yet.

Cognitive Architectures and Modeling Frameworks

Core idea: Model AI after human cognitive processes using integrated architectures. Classic examples: Soar, ACT-R, LIDA, Sigma, CLARION, and Goertzel’s OpenCog. These frameworks combine modules for perception, working memory, reasoning, and action selection according to a unified theory of mind. They often embed cognitive theories (e.g. Global Workspace, ACT-R’s production rules) to achieve generalized intelligence.

Intel’s Hala Point neuromorphic system (1.15B neurons) highlights the hardware scale of brain-inspired AGI research. Despite its size, Hala Point is a research prototype supporting exploration of brain-like continuous learning.

Recent progress: There is steady work on cognitive architectures, though much of it is academic. For instance, researchers catalogued 56 existing AGI-focused architectures and proposed a “universal” framework combining all desired module. This hypothetical AGI architecture includes a universal knowledge model (integrating text, images, graphs, neural nets, ontologies, etc) and components like consciousness, reflection, ethics, and social interaction. While highly theoretical, this underscores community interest in holistic designs. Other efforts integrate cognitive models with modern learning: e.g. merging cognitive layers into LLMs to inject structured reasoning (project CMC – Common Model of Cognition). Carnegie Mellon’s Soar and Stanford’s ACT-R remain testbeds for understanding cognition and building embodied AGI agents. Cognitive architectures continue to influence robotics and HCI, and serve as platforms to test cognitive theories in software.

Pros & Cons: Cognitive frameworks promise integrated AGI – systems with memory, attention, reasoning, and even self-monitoring. They explicitly target human-like adaptability. In practice, they have produced successful task-specific agents (e.g. cognitive robotics) and insights into learning. However, most cognitive architectures are hand-engineered and do not scale easily to complex domains without extensive rule-crafting. They also often lack modern deep learning capabilities. Thus, pure cognitive architectures face the same challenge: combining rich, human-level modeling with large-scale data-driven learning. Many experts argue these must ultimately be hybridized with neural methods (e.g. coupling LIDA or ACT-R modules with neural nets) to achieve AGI.

Modular & Agentic Architectures

Core idea: Build intelligence as a network of specialized modules or agents that collaborate, mirroring modular brain regions or teams of experts. Each module handles a subfunction (e.g. vision, planning, language, reward learning), and the modules communicate. This can also refer to multi-agent systems where separate “agents” (software entities) cooperate. A recent trend is to organize LLM-based agents in a modular pipeline, but for AGI we focus on truly heterogeneous modules, some symbolic, some neural.

Recent progress: For example, Momennejad et al. (2025) proposed the Modular Agentic Planner (MAP): an architecture of multiple LLM-based modules each specialized to a prefrontal-like function (state prediction, task decomposition, error monitoring, etc). MAP significantly improved multi-step planning (Tower of Hanoi, navigation) by orchestrating these modules as a team. This brain-inspired design shows how modularization can patch LLM weaknesses. Other work under the “Society of Mind” paradigm similarly experiments with ensembles of expert networks (hierarchical or blackboard systems). On the multi-agent side, industry shows interest in “agentic AI” (LangChain, AutoGPT) for task automation, though these remain largely LLM-driven. In research, combining cognitive modules with neural components to create a “team of minds” is gaining interest as a way to scale reasoning and adaptivity.

Pros & Cons: Modular architectures allow divide-and-conquer: each component can use the best suitable method (neural, symbolic or both) for its role, improving flexibility. They can incorporate attention-like coordination (global workspace) and are naturally extensible. MAP’s success highlights that modular planning can dramatically boost reasoning. However, coordinating many modules adds complexity (communication protocols, arbitration). Ensuring global coherence (no conflicts between modules) is challenging. Like cognitive architectures, many modular designs are still prototypes. The integration of heterogeneous modules remains a research frontier. Nevertheless, combining modularity with brain-inspired learning (e.g. multi-module fusion via reinforcement learning) may be a key strategy for future AGI.

Emerging Consensus

The growing literature and expert commentary suggest no single approach has yet “won” – instead, many believe AGI will require a hybrid of these paradigms. IBM researchers explicitly note that “Neuro-symbolic AI seems to be one of the necessary steps to achieve AGI”. Intel’s neuromorphic efforts stress that energy-efficient, brain-like hardware is needed for sustainable AGI at scale. Meanwhile, cognitive science models and dual-memory ideas address the continuous learning aspect (lifelong adaptation) that LLMs lack. In summary, innovation is highest at the intersections: for example, systems that combine neural learning with symbolic planning, or neuromorphic hardware running memory-augmented cognitive modules.

The table below compares the core ideas, leaders, strengths and weaknesses of the major AGI approach categories discussed above:

Approach/Architecture	Core Concept	Lead Developers / Organizations	Key Strengths	Potential Limitations
Neurosymbolic Systems	Hybrid models that integrate neural networks with symbolic logic/reasoning.	IBM (MIT/Watson), Google (DeepMind), academic labs (MIT, Stanford), DARPA.	Leverage structured knowledge and rules for reasoning and explanation. Improves sample efficiency and safety.	Difficult to scale and engineer broadly; few general-purpose systems so far.
Brain-inspired / Neuromorphic	SNNs, memristive circuits and bio-inspired chips that mimic brain computation.	Intel (Loihi/Hala Point), USC (Yang Lab), Stanford, Tsinghua (Tianjic), Numenta.	Extremely energy-efficient learning and inference. Supports continuous learning in hardware.	Still mostly prototypes; limited flexibility; programming models immature.
Memory-augmented Networks	Explicit episodic/long-term memory modules (e.g. Neural Turing Machines, memory+LLM).	DeepMind, Google, Meta, startups (Emergent Mind), universities (IgnitePathways).	Enables persistent knowledge, context-awareness and lifelong learning. Can avoid catastrophic forgetting.	Complex memory management (indexing, retrieval); potential hallucinations; early-stage tech.
Cognitive Architectures	Modular agent frameworks modeled on human cognition (Soar, ACT-R, LIDA, Sigma, OpenCog).	Research universities (CMU, Stanford, USC, SUNY), AI labs (Novamente, OpenCog Foundation).	Rich, unified models of perception, reasoning, memory and learning. Offers explainability and embodied AGI labs.	Rule-heavy and engineering-intensive; scalability and learning efficiency lag modern ML.
Modular/Agentic Architectures	Networks of specialized modules or agents (e.g. MAP planning modules, multi-agent systems).	Cognitive neuroscience teams (Columbia – MAP), Google, Ought, Microsoft (agent research).	Divide-and-conquer approach; can combine best techniques per module. Facilitates complex planning.	Hard coordination and coherence; integration complexity; often still ML-anchored.

References: