1) Calling humans AGI seems to be ignoring the A in AGI. Not that that alters the point any. It would just make sense to call humans GI than AGI. 2) Just becau

1) Calling humans AGI seems to be ignoring the A in AGI. Not that that alters the point any. It would just make sense to call humans GI than AGI. 2) Just because we don’t have a single precise definition of “intelligent” / just because intelligence isn’t a single dimensional thing, does not mean that we can’t establish that something is or would be more intelligent than something else. Comparing the size of two boxes isn’t always well defined, but if one fits inside the other, the other is clearly larger. 3) People in AI safety seem to make it fairly clear that what they mean by intelligence is the ability to, among the available options, to select options to effectively further goals. 4) This fourth thing isn’t necessarily a criticism so much as a note, but, the article/post seems rather opposed to things like the “great man theory of history”?