computer scientists cant even decide what is the proper definition for Artificial General Intelligence

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/07/agi-may-be-impossible-to-define-and-thats-a-multibillion-dollar-problem/

Microsoft and OpenAI are locked in acrimonious negotiations partly because they cannot agree on what artificial general intelligence means,

>despite having written the term AGI into a contract worth over $13 billion, according to The Wall Street Journal. The contract says "we are building AGI".

One definition reportedly agreed upon by the companies sets the AGI threshold at when AI generates $100 billion in profits.

Under their partnership agreement, OpenAI can limit Microsoft's access to future technology once it achieves AGI. OpenAI executives believe they are close to declaring AGI, while Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella called using AGI as a self-proclaimed milestone "nonsensical benchmark hacking".

>>509856562 (OP)
AGI is a meaningless term. People think of it as an AI that can do anything humans can, but human thought itself is good at some things, bad at others, and not objective at all. Copying human intelligence has never been the goal

>>509856562 (OP)
>they cannot agree on what artificial general intelligence means

I think you mean which definition is easiest to sell to investors and what their dumbasses will consider AGI

it’s LTE all over again

>>509856720
>but human thought itself is good at some things, bad at others

imagine this: a chimpanzee has muchbetter short term memory than humans but fails in long term memory

chimp sees some pattern, remembers it for 5 minutes altough watched it only for mere seconds

a human will almost certainly fail the same test

but a human can memorize a similar thing when looking at it for a much longer time and then also remember it for years if he so wishes (it needs to be revisited from time time)

a chimp starts at tabula rasa state soon after

a chimp can be encouraged to do these tests with food reward, otherwise they are unlikely to care