Mine came out to 0%, which is also personally where I'd put it. But I think it's a question wrongly put. We don't need AGI for current tools and their descend

Mine came out to 0%, which is also personally where I'd put it. But I think it's a question wrongly put. We don't need AGI for current tools and their descendants to be extremely disruptive. For the longest time chess programs only mimicked one aspect of the way humans play the game (calculation) but they did it at such a superhuman level we were unable to beat them. LLMs, computer vision tools, etc. don't need to be AGI to be able to displace large amounts of human jobs. Having the discussion about if and in what ways we can prepare for the innovation that seems inevitable in that space seems like a much more prudent discussion than speculating about whether AGI will exist or not.