> presumably, an 'AGI' that is generally as good as a really good human at every task under-the-sun will already be much better than most humans at the task bec

> presumably, an 'AGI' that is generally as good as a really good human at every task under-the-sun will already be much better than most humans at the task because it can incorporate cross-domain knowledge and apply it in a reasonable fashion. I disagree with this definition of AGI, and I disagree that chess skills significantly benefit from generalizing non-chess knowledge, outside of computing moves probabilistically. AGI has historically been defined as human level or better, with generality to new domains. I think blurring it with ASI makes the terminology confusing to use. Chess is learned rules and the ability to apply those rules. Strategy as a whole is applying a set of rules to circumstances, that's how it is taught: "here are examples of circumstances and actions, try to pattern match to future circumstance and apply commensurate action." If you make the point that chess is a large part of the training data, or that LLMs are unable to learn chess well, I'll accept that as refuting that LLMs are AGI, but these other points I disagree with.