How will someone claim they've achieved either, if we can't agree on the definitions?
The definition of AGI that OpenAI uses (or used) was of economic relevance. The one I use would encompass the original ChatGPT (3.5)*. I've seen threads here that (by my reading) opine that AGI is impossible because the commentor thinks humans can violate Gödel's incompleteness theorem (or equivalent) and obviously computers can't.
ASI is easier to discuss (for now), because it's always beyond the best human.
* weakly intelligent, but still an AI system, and it's much more general than anything we had before transformers were invented.