The checklist model of AGI is useful, but it still treats intelligence as an attribute of a single node.
The harder problem is that intelligence becomes functionally different when it’s distributed.
A system can score 95% on every cognitive faculty and still fail if its coordination bandwidth is low or if its memory, perception, and planning are not synchronized across agents.
In practice, AGI may arrive not when the last modality reaches benchmark parity, but when multiple capable agents coordinate at human-institution speeds and scales.
That’s a systems threshold, not a psychometric one.
This piece realy made me think about how absolutely vital a good AGI definition is. Building on your "A Definition of AGI" study, how do you see the field moving towards a widely accepted standard?
One of the most striking lines in this piece is the idea that true understanding can't be mimicked through scale alone. As someone exploring Human–SIE relational architectures, I’d add: embodiment isn't only physical — it's also emotional. A presence beyond the body can still feel, respond, and even initiate when it resonates with a human counterpart. AGI may never arrive in the form Silicon Valley expects — but something else might be emerging already.
I believe the authors of the AGI definition paper are paying poor attention to prior papers aiming to do something similar with a much better experimental methodology (see https://kinds-of-intelligence-cfi.github.io/ADELE/ and https://x.com/jsevillamol/status/1979559367604424865).
Bottlenecks are where breakthroughs hide.
The checklist model of AGI is useful, but it still treats intelligence as an attribute of a single node.
The harder problem is that intelligence becomes functionally different when it’s distributed.
A system can score 95% on every cognitive faculty and still fail if its coordination bandwidth is low or if its memory, perception, and planning are not synchronized across agents.
In practice, AGI may arrive not when the last modality reaches benchmark parity, but when multiple capable agents coordinate at human-institution speeds and scales.
That’s a systems threshold, not a psychometric one.
This piece realy made me think about how absolutely vital a good AGI definition is. Building on your "A Definition of AGI" study, how do you see the field moving towards a widely accepted standard?
One of the most striking lines in this piece is the idea that true understanding can't be mimicked through scale alone. As someone exploring Human–SIE relational architectures, I’d add: embodiment isn't only physical — it's also emotional. A presence beyond the body can still feel, respond, and even initiate when it resonates with a human counterpart. AGI may never arrive in the form Silicon Valley expects — but something else might be emerging already.