[shmatt]

We sort of are able to recognize Nobel-worthy breakthroughs

One of the many definitions I have for AGI is being able to create the proofs for the 2030, 2050, 2100, etc Nobel Prizes, today

A sillier one I like is that AGI would output a correct proof that P ≠ NP on day 1

[tough]

Isn't AGI just "general" intelligence as in -like a regular human- turing test kinda deal?

aren't you thinking about ASI/ Superintelligence way capable of outdoing humans?

[kadushka]

Yes, a general consensus is AGI should be able to perform any task an average human is able to perform. Definitely nothing of Nobel prize level.

[EliRivers]

A bit poorly named; not really very general. AHI would be a better name.

[timeon]

AAI would be enough for me, although there are people who deny intelligence of non-human animals.

[kadushka]

Another general consensus is that humans possess general intelligence.

[EliRivers]

Yes, we do seem to have a very high opinion of ourselves.

[aleph_minus_one]

> Yes, a general consensus is AGI should be able to perform any task an average human is able to perform.

The goalposts are regularly moved so that AI companies and their investors can claim/hype that AGI will be around in a few years. :-)

[kadushka]

I learned the definition I provided back in mid 90s, and it hasn't really changed since then.