If you define agi to be artificial and generally intelligent at the human level then yes we have.
It seems though that definitions of agi have since shifted to "better than human experts in all tasks" in which case no...not yet.
It seems though that definitions of agi have since shifted to "better than human experts in all tasks" in which case no...not yet.
If the model is basically on par with experts then it's still human fallible. But...suppose a general intelligence that is the level at each task as the chess engines of today is at chess.
Basically the, "Oh you thought that was a mistake ?, no you just didn't understand the program" level of intelligence even for the smartest of humans.