I never understood AGI to mean "better than humans". A lot of people assumed it would easily be made to be, by simply throwing more silicon at it until it was, but being smarter than humans isn't what makes it "AGI".

Put this another way, suppose we create a computer program that is only as smart as a bottom 10% human (I'm not saying they have.) You can't reasonably say that is smarter than humans generally. But are you comfortable saying that bottom 10% humans lack any general intelligence at all? General intelligence doesn't mean extreme intelligence, and so Artificial General Intelligence doesn't either. You might say that the term is more than the sum of the parts, which is fair, but I still dispute that superhuman abilities was ever part of the definition of AGI. It was just a (thusfar) failed prediction about AGI.