Is there actually an agreed definition of AGI? It's always seemed like a marketing term that can mean whatever next quarters earnings need it to mean.
I am not aware of a complete operational definition, but it would not be that difficult to build a good tentative one. I have mentioned many different requirements several times.
One non-abstract definition is in the "10 points" here: https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/where-will-ai-be-at-the-en...
Edit: "definition" (the 10 points above) that is cannot be that of "AGI", really. AGI just needs to actually implement Intelligence and requires very many features that are not there today. The list from Marcus is about "Artificial Super General Intelligence" - not the same thing.
You can implement a replacement for Intellligence - that is AI;
you can implement Intelligence - that is AGI;
you can implement Intelligence of very high value output: that is "ASGI" (or similar).
"With little or no human involvement, come up with paradigm-shifting, Nobel-caliber scientific discoveries."
Indeed far above the capabilities of almost all humans. I agree we should have a separate category for this. "ASGI" is still a bit unintuitive, imho. Maybe Artificial Excellent Intelligence.
With AGI explicitly meaning matching average humans, I would say that we really have already reached AGI. I can't think of any intelligence-only task where I'd think an average human would do significantly better than frontier AI provided with correct context.
It seems that "ASI" ("Artificial Super Intelligence") is in use, maybe it will get further traction. It should imply AGI.
> AGI ... matching average humans
Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces. Intelligence is not there - the implementation is unfinished.
That's why I suggested AEI.
> Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces.
Are you saying that the average human is missing pieces and thus can't be considered intelligent?
No, I was saying that current technologies with emergent simil-intelligent behaviour miss properties that are necessary to have proper Intelligence.
The average human does have atrophied abilities, compared of course to proficient humans. And in fact, we certainly do not aim to simulate average humans. We aim to simulate or actually implement Intelligence.
Justify why we should have any consideration for the average human etc. in comparison to software systems - I have written we disregard it as a nonsensical parameter. "Does Stable Diffusion paint better than John's aunt": we cannot care.
We should care because "John's aunt" might rely on her paycheck as a professional painter to pay her bills. Many average humans have average jobs, some of which require intelligence (or creative production) only. Ignoring this reality is folly.
is part of other concerns.
So you meant: "we are already at a point in which many humans can be non-competitive in the professional market". Yes. We were still there some time ago already.
But, again (and again), that which you propose cannot be a productive definition of AGI. In engineering we strive to understand "Fast", then to implement it, and then obtain "faster than a cheetah" - not "faster than a roadkill", which is really not a goal.
> more intelligent than average humans
Adequate language and ideas, please: one probably does not have actual intelligence, the other probably does not use it.
So now we'll need a new acronym.