I don't know if "human-level" makes sense to me either. We already have human-level AI in plenty of areas, from chess to illustration to translation. A pocket

I don't know if "human-level" makes sense to me either. We already have human-level AI in plenty of areas, from chess to illustration to translation. A pocket calculator is human-level at arithmetic. Some flow-control monitoring software in a water treatment plant is human level at monitoring flow control. You could enumerate any number of skills in which software already meets or exceeds human levels, but even if you had a single AI that could do all of those things at a human level it would just feel like a bloated piece of software with a bunch of specialized modules that didn't add up to "real intelligence". The only thing that I can think of which would suffice is human-type intelligence, rather than human-level intelligence. That is, a machine which is intelligent in a way that reminds us of humans. It's the Potter Stewart test for intelligence: "you know it when you see it". I don't know what else would end the debate. To be clear, this is related to the argument about what AGI means, not whether that's a relevant topic to discuss, not whether we have systems which can solve useful problems, etc.