I think the guy read the paper he linked the wrong way. The paper explicitly separates "narrow" and "AGI" types where AlphaGo is in the virtuoso bracket for narrow AI, and ChatGPT is in the "emerging" bracket for "general" AI. Only thing it puts to be AGI is few levels up from virtuoso, but in the "general" type.

Read the paper linked above, and if you don't agree that's okay. There are many who don't.

Has anyone written a response to this paper? Their main gist is to try to define AGI empirically using only what is measurable.

Check it again, I think you might have misread the thing. It categorizes things in a way that clearly separates AlphaGO from even shooting towards "AGI". The "General" part of AGI can't really be skipped or words don't make any sense anymore.

Ah, gotcha; I meant "superintelligence" (which is ASI and not AGI).