This seems like a problematic standard. For one, it's very fuzzy. A human who is top 51% and one who's top 49% are very similar to each other and could probably swap places depending on how they're feeling that day; there's nothing fundamentally different going on in their heads. Even at the further ends of the scale, humans have essentially the same kind of brains and minds as each other, some more capable than others but still all belonging to the same category of thinking things. Your AGI definition bifurcates the human population into those that possess general intelligence and those who don't, but this seems hard to justify. At least, hard to justify when drawn there. If you put the line at profound mental retardation where a person can no longer function in society, that would make more sense. A slightly below average human may not be exceptional in any regard but I think they still possess what must be regarded as general intelligence.

Furthermore, you're counting cases where humans do things the computer cannot but ignoring cases where the computer does things humans cannot. For instance, I doubt any human alive, let alone average humans can give reasonable explanations for short snippets of computer code in as many languages as GPT-4o, or formulate poetry in as many styles on arbitrary topics, or rattle off esoteric trivia and opinions about obscure historic topics, .... I think you get the point. It has already surpassed average human abilities in many categories of intellectually challenging tasks, but with your definition if it fails at even one task an average human can do, then it lacks "general intelligence."

I suggest that your definition is one for "AHI" (Average Human Intelligence), not one for "AGI" (Artificial General Intelligence.)