A group of people are working on making it scientifically valid

If by a "group of people" you mean the folks at the Myers-Briggs foundation or whatever it is called, then yes -- people are trying to work on making it scientifically valid. But then my criticism with regard to research practices and corporate interests still stands. At least in that regard, the accusation of pseudoscience (or simply bad science, if you want) is warranted.

If you mean people like DaveSuperPowers of ObjectivePersonality fame, then no -- people aren't trying to make it scientifically valid; they're trying to build a sham business to get rich quickly.

If you mean people like Dario Nardi of "Neuroscience of personality" fame, then no, they're not working on making it scientifically valid in any meaningful or productive sense and their endeavor is destined to fail.

But it should be stated that the people in the first category have an almost completely different understanding of the MBTI than your average /r/mbti user. They're not employing functions, or loops, or think functions can be developed, or that there are "jumpers", or that Enneagram is worthwhile to consider, etc.

the main problem with mbti is its aspirations it really is biting off a whole lot

That's not true. The MBTI's aims are remarkably straightforward -- it aims to provide a framework of categories to describe human personality, originally created as a tool to help women find fitting careers or something like that.

It's really only when people start ascribing all sorts of things to it, like that it's a theory of cognition, or that it can help us find the right partner, or that it contains some (almost metaphysical) truth about the world, or -- and that's a new one, actually -- that it can offer any insights into human consciousness, that the alleged aspirations become too much to handle for a very limited and superficial framework like the MBTI.