Interesting read. I agree completely with their Introduction, that the definition of AGI is constantly shifting, and this leads to endless (and useless) debates

Interesting read. I agree completely with their Introduction, that the definition of AGI is constantly shifting, and this leads to endless (and useless) debates. What I find cool about the paper is that they have gathered folks from lots of places (berkley, stanford, mit, etc). And no big4 labs. That's good imo. tl;dr; Their definition: "AGI is an AI that can match or exceed the cognitive versatility and proficiency of a well-educated adult." Cool. It's a definition. I doubt it will be agreed on by everyone, and I can see endless debates about just about every word in that definition. That's not gonna change. At least it's a starting point. What I find interesting is that they specifically say it's not a benchmark, or a test set. It's a framework where they detail what should be tested, and how (with examples). They do have a "catchy" table with gpt4 vs gpt5, that I bet will be covered by every mainstream/blog/forum/etc out there -> gpt5 is at ~50% AGI. Big title. You won't believe where it was one year ago. Number 7 will shock you. And all that jazz. Anyway, I don't think people will stop debating about AGI. And I doubt this methodology will be agreed on by everyone. At the end of the day both extremes are more ideological in nature than pragmatic. Both end want/need their view to be correct. I enjoyed reading it. Don't think it will settle anything. And, as someone posted below, when the first model will hit 100% on their framework, we'll find new frameworks to debate about, just like we did with the turing test :)