Today's AI models have surpassed the definition of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) that was commonly accepted by AI researchers just over a decade ago. The debate continues because the goalposts for what constitutes "true" AGI have been moved.
Related Insights
As AI models achieve previously defined benchmarks for intelligence (e.g., reasoning), their failure to generate transformative economic value reveals those benchmarks were insufficient. This justifies 'shifting the goalposts' for AGI. It is a rational response to realizing our understanding of intelligence was too narrow. Progress in impressiveness doesn't equate to progress in usefulness.
A consortium including leaders from Google and DeepMind has defined AGI as matching the cognitive versatility of a "well-educated adult" across 10 domains. This new framework moves beyond abstract debate, showing a concrete 30-point leap in AGI score from GPT-4 (27%) to a projected GPT-5 (57%).
OpenAI's CEO believes the term "AGI" is ill-defined and its milestone may have passed without fanfare. He proposes focusing on "superintelligence" instead, defining it as an AI that can outperform the best human at complex roles like CEO or president, creating a clearer, more impactful threshold.
The popular concept of AGI as a static, all-knowing entity is flawed. A more realistic and powerful model is one analogous to a 'super intelligent 15-year-old'—a system with a foundational capacity for rapid, continual learning. Deployment would involve this AI learning on the job, not arriving with complete knowledge.
The definition of AGI is a moving goalpost. Scott Wu argues that today's AI meets the standards that would have been considered AGI a decade ago. As technology automates tasks, human work simply moves to a higher level of abstraction, making percentage-based definitions of AGI flawed.
The discourse around AGI is caught in a paradox. Either it is already emerging, in which case it's less a cataclysmic event and more an incremental software improvement, or it remains a perpetually receding future goal. This captures the tension between the hype of superhuman intelligence and the reality of software development.
Dr. Li views the distinction between AI and AGI as largely semantic and market-driven, rather than a clear scientific threshold. The original goal of AI research, dating back to Turing, was to create machines that can think and act like humans. The term "AGI" doesn't fundamentally change this North Star for scientists.
An analysis of AI model performance shows a 2-2.5x improvement in intelligence scores across all major players within the last year. This rapid advancement is leading to near-perfect scores on existing benchmarks, indicating a need for new, more challenging tests to measure future progress.
The tech community's negative reaction to a 10-year AGI forecast reveals just how accelerated expectations have become. A decade ago, such a prediction would have been seen as wildly optimistic, highlighting a massive psychological shift in the industry's perception of AI progress.
The race to manage AGI is hampered by a philosophical problem: there's no consensus definition for what it is. We might dismiss true AGI's outputs as "hallucinations" because they don't fit our current framework, making it impossible to know when the threshold from advanced AI to true general intelligence has actually been crossed.
