This may be a terminological disagreement rather than something fundamental. You said > ... AGI might be philosophically impossible given that we do not seem t

This may be a terminological disagreement rather than something fundamental. You said > ... AGI might be philosophically impossible given that we do not seem to have a proven, accepted definition of GI. That says x might be impossible to achieve if we don't know what x actually is. I disagree. Now if you'd said > ... AGI might be philosophically impossible to recognise given that we do not seem to have a proven, accepted definition of GI. Then yes, I'm with you - perhaps we can both agree that it could be created, and exist in reality, but we are unlikely to get consensus amongst everyone that it has been achieved, thus permanently leaving open the question of whether we've 'got there' or not. Can we agree on that?