[pama]

I didnt read your draft paper, but your premise in HN sounds a bit off to me. AGI does not assume the ability for finding or learning an optimal solution to every problem (with that assumption it would be trivial to prove it impossible in many different ways). Independent of the exact definition, a system of intelligence that is better or equal to the best human in any domain would be at least termed AGI. (If there exist a couple incompressible problems along the way you can memorize the human solution.) If you proved AGI impossible under such a (weaker?) definition you would prove that humans can no longer improve in any domain (as the set of all humans is a general intelligence). Or you would need to assume that there is something special inside humans, which no technology can ever build. I disagree with both premises.

[mindcrime]

Independent of the exact definition, a system of intelligence that is better or equal to the best human in any domain would be at least termed AGI.

Exactly. There's this "thing" you see in certain circles, where people (intentionally?) mis-interpret the "G" in AGI as meaning "the most general possible intelligence". But that's not the reality. AGI has pretty much always been taken to mean "AI that is approximately human level". Going beyond that is getting into the realm of Artificial Super Intelligence, or Universal Artificial Intelligence.

[orwin]

What I remember is that a lot of people used the word 'AI', other (including me) said 'thats not intelligence, it's too specific', and poof, a new word came to replace the word AI, 'AGI', to mean an AI that can adapt to new, unforseen situations.

The LLM that will convince me that AGI is near is one that will understand language enough to find the linguistic rules of conlangs they weren't trained on (or more specifically, engineered languages made by linguists with our current knowledge of how languages work), and create grammatically correct sentences. Something someone trained on can do with great effort, but it's more due to breaking habits and limited brainpower than real complexity.

[jhanschoo]

I think that OP's conclusion may be true in a not very meaningful sense: once a particular non-trivial threshold of competence is defined for every task (infinitely many), then any policy must be bad at some of them.