In my personal lexicon, "AGI" means computer / machine based intelligence that is approximately as flexible and capable as an average adult human. So an "AGI" to me, should be able to drive a car, play chess, do math, discuss literature, etc. What is not required in my definition is for the AGI to be "human like" at all. So the Turing Test is meaningless to me, as I don't need an AGI to be able to lie effectively and do things like describing subjective experiences (like drinking too much wine, getting drunk, and pissing itself) that it never had.

I also don't require it to do things that require embodiment, like "play a game of baseball" or whatever. Although I do see a time coming when robotics and AI will align to the extent that an AI powered robotic player will be able to "play a game of baseball" or suchlike.

To expand on this a bit: I don't over-emphasize the "general" part like some people do. That is, some people argue against AGI on the basis that "even humans aren't a general intelligence". That, to me, is mere pedantry and goal-post moving. I don't think anybody involved in AGI ever expected AGI to necessarily mean "most general possible problem solver that can exist in the state space of all possible general problem solvers" or whatever. Disclosure: I'm partially paraphrasing Ben Goertzel from a recent interview[1] I saw, in that previous sentence.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVWzwIg4Adw