I feel like we are at a point where AGI has to be be defined in a different way. This kind of list isn't enough, in my opinion to help actually delineate weak and strong AGI. At a layman's understanding of technology the way a computer works is as equally "magical" as seeing the output of the stable diffusion model. And creating art is a very clear step into "thinking".

For many people AGI is already here. They have Siri and Alexa, AI art, GPT3 based therapy/chat bot, a chat bot that will help them write a book, and "soon" will drive their car for them. The Google Duplex assistant demo where it booked an appointment made it clear to me that for some people, that's the smartest they need AI to be. Anything more is just extra.

I am really excited about how far we're going to push AI in my lifetime, but I also realized that for many scenarios, weak AGI is enough. People will project their own expectations and essentially help fool themselves. I don't know if testing a model to perform the same as a human matters in some ways.

There's one big skill that I personally value the most when it comes to qualifying hard AI, and that's the ability of it to make me laugh based comedic irony. I wonder what that model would look like.