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.