It seems to me the definition of AGI is really important here. What does AGI mean today? What it used to mean, we passed by a while back. The old definition

It seems to me the definition of AGI is really important here. What does AGI mean today? What it used to mean, we passed by a while back. The old definition in the Research community was that AGI would be able to formulate solutions to novel problems that had not been defined by the programmers. Thus, the “general” intelligence. We’re talking about mouse level intelligence. That’s what AGI meant. LLMs have demonstrated broad problem solving capabilities across domains, and are capable of making inferences about things and developing a type of internal world model, all by encoding and parsing the cultural-linguistic framework recorded by humanity. We’re way past the old mark. Now, it seems, the qualification for AGI has been expanded to require: 1 a kind of agency 2 Superhuman accuracy and width/depth of knowledge 3 Vastly superhuman capacity to maintain thousands of simultaneous conversations with thousands of pages of context 4 A level of artistic proficiency, at least in imitation of artistic style So what does AGI mean now? In 1990, GPT4 would have been called a “limited super-intelligence” in the parlance of the day. Hell even an 8b model could have hit that mark, based on the breadth of accessible knowledge and ability to reason alone. I would venture to say that my uncle bob, or 10,000 uncle bobs, operating terminals in a pungent call center somewhere, would be deemed “not AGI yet” by current standards, and would be a hell of a lot less useful than an api for deepseek r1 32B. So, do humans of bog average intelligence not qualify as General intelligences? Or is it their capacity to do other things besides the call center job that makes them GI? If it’s the second option, how should we measure “call center intelligence” differently? We are using a benchmark we obviously have no metric for, at all.