> AI, AGI, and intelligence itself are poorly defined. Of course they are. The previous definitions were not credible and nonsensical. > I invite you to add t

> AI, AGI, and intelligence itself are poorly defined. Of course they are. The previous definitions were not credible and nonsensical. > I invite you to add to the literature if you think you have any novel insight, and get it published. That has been already done. You might want to start here: [0] - A Definition of AGI Let's read the agreed (Gary Marcus approved) definition together: "AGI is an AI that can match or exceed the cognitive versatility and proficiency of a well-educated adult." What other well-educated adult can claim that they gave a rigorous solution to an unsolved mathematical problem (Millennium Prize problem). One human out of 8 billion can claim that. Now an unreleased AI system has also just done that. I would have expected it to have been instantly dismissed by mathematicians as a flawed proof. But it instead, it has upset them and has them worried, even when they are still needed to verify the proof. > Otherwise I'd recommend digging deeper into history, cognitive science, philosophy. That would prevent making any such empty claims as "today is the day artificial general intelligence was created". If otherwise you prefer to be mystified by linear algebra and big computers, I kindly refuse to partake. This really sounds like cope I'm afraid. Surely you are running out of space to move the goalpost this time. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18212 https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18212