The definition of agi is a linguistic problem but people confuse it for a philosophical problem. Think about it. The term is basically just a classification and

The definition of agi is a linguistic problem but people confuse it for a philosophical problem. Think about it. The term is basically just a classification and what features and qualities fit the classification is an arbitrary and linguistic choice. The debate stems from a delusion and failure to realize that people are simply picking and choosing different fringe features on what qualifies as agi. Additionally the term exists in a fuzzy state inside our minds as well. It’s not that the concept is profound. It’s that some of the features that define the classification of the term we aren’t sure about. But this doesn’t matter because we are basically just unsure about the definition of a term that we completely made up arbitrarily. For example the definition of consciousness seems like a profound debate but it’s not. The word consciousness is a human invention and the definition is vague because we choose the definition to be ill defined, vague and controversial. Much of the debate on this stuff is purely as I stated just a language issue.