Why do we even want to have human intelligence? It's flawed and limited in so many ways. Most of its magic is there because it cares about its host.

Since everyone's spitballing their idea of AGI, my personal take is that AGI should be a fully autonomous system that have a stable self-image of some sort, can act on its own volition, understand the outcome of its actions, learn from cause-and-effect, and can continue doing so indefinitely.

So far, LLMs aren't even remotely close to this, as they only do what they are told to do (directly or otherwise), they can't learn without a costly offline retraining process, they do not care in the slightest what they're tasked with doing or why, and they do not have anything approximating a sense of self beyond what they're told to be.

Everyone has a definition and so have I. I would call it an AGI when i replace my smartphone and laptop with it. When my screen time is zero? Can AGI replace screens? Go figure.

Creative problem solving and commonsense physics are missing, among others.

It is a valuable contribution but the CHC theory from psychology that this is based on is itself incomplete.

By commonsense physics, I mean something like simulating interactions of living and non-living entities in 3D over time. Seems more complicated than the examples in the web site and in most tests used in psychometrics.

Creative problem solving with cognitive leaps required for truly novel research & invention could lie outside the rubrics as well. The criteria in CHC are essential but incomplete I believe.

What about learning? As humans we continually update our weights from sensing the world. Before the AI can rewrite itself it can't really be AGI imo

And this is it (from the abstract):

  > defining AGI as matching the cognitive versatility and proficiency of a well-educated adult.

GPT-5 is 57%? Hilarious. This is a bad joke.

The problem is not really defining AGI. It's testing for it in a way that avoids illusory intelligence.

Dan is very ambitious great marketer too