I would contend that a 5-year-old has general intelligence, and therefore an AI system with the language and reasoning abilities of a 5-year-old has artificial general intelligence.
But the discriminator of having to "pay an intelligent professional otherwise" sets the bar very high. That implies AGI must be an expert in every subject, surpassing the average human. I'd prefer we use a different term for that, like "artificial superintelligence."
IMHO if it can do every single human job at a level of competency that's consider acceptable if a human did it, I would consider that "human level" - frankly, it's implied that when people say "human level", they mean the average human.
Seriously though, arguing over semantics is just a waste of time. It's what it can do and the consequences of what it can that really matter.
> That implies AGI must be an expert in every subject, surpassing the average human.
Doesn't have to be the same AI "instance". We can have multiple copies of the AI with different specializations. That would still count - I mean it's how we humans do it.
I believe they were using that discriminator to classify AI, not AGI.
Exactly. "Ah but your system to organize the warehouse is not intelligent!" "No it isn't, but it does it intelligently - and without it you would have to pay an intelligent professional to get it done optimally".
AI: "automation of intelligence".
(Not "implementation of intelligence itself" - that is AGI.)