[yorwba]

I think the people behind the ARC Prize agree that getting a high score doesn't mean we have AGI. (They already updated the benchmark once to make it harder.) But an AGI should get a similarly high score as humans do. So current models that get very low scores are definitely not AGI, and likely quite far away from it.

[cubefox]

> I think the people behind the ARC Prize agree that getting a high score doesn't mean we have AGI

The benchmark was literally called ARC-AGI. Only after OpenAI cracked it, they started backtracking and saying that it doesn't test for true AGI. Which undermines the whole premise of a benchmark.

[yorwba]

It does test for AGI. For its absence.

[cubefox]

I would call something as intelligent as an animal an AGI. They are very general (as opposed to narrow) intelligences, just not necessarily very smart ones. ARC-AGI arguably conflates these two dimensions.