I doubt if we will ever get AGI.
Does it mean 'exactly human level capabilities in all aspects that a human can perform'? Because I agree with you on that point - no one really wants it, either. We already have several billion computers in the world requiring a low power requirement, and fairly easily reproducible, that can do that.
Does it mean 'smarter than a human on most tasks'? I'm pretty sure Opus 5.5 has crossed that line fairly definitively.
Does it mean 'smarter than a human on all tasks'? I think it's doubtful we'll ever get there with LLMs which are trained on human-derived data. I also generally think this is "ASI".
And if the AI isn't general enough to handle every part of a business well then you will not convince people that its AGI.
This hasn't changed from 10 years ago, this level was always what people imagined about the future of AI.
> a Competent AGI must have performance at least at the 50th percentile for skilled adult humans on most cognitive tasks
and "emerging AGI" as
> "equal to or somewhat better than an unskilled human"
The moving the goalposts here is people saying it has to outperform humans on literally every task to be AGI. We have artificial general intelligence by any reasonable definition; people here are complaining we don't have super-intelligence.
You don't have to outperform humans to run a business, nobody said you have to outperform humans on everything. Humans can run businesses, so AGI should be able to as well.
As long as humans outperform AI on a lot of tasks we have yet to reach AGI, and the easiest way to see that is that business still hires humans to do knowledge work and businesses are still lead by humans.