I dislike the term AGI, as intelligence (of any type) always involves tradeoffs. Being exceptional at solving 2D grid-based pattern tasks is just one skill. Humans have a strong visual bias, while some hypothetical superintelligent slime molds might value entirely different problems. Indeed, I know smart people (PhDs in STEM fields at major universities) who struggle with geometric puzzles, yet excel at linguistic or algebraic ones.

Getting a perfect ARC-AGI-n score isn't a smoking gun indicator of general intelligence. Rather, it simply means we're now able to solve a class of problems previously beyond AI capabilities (which is exciting in itself!).

I view ARC-AGI primarily as a benchmark (similar in spirit to Raven's matrices) that makes memorization substantially harder. Compare this with vocabulary-focused IQ tests, where cognitive skills certainly matter, but results depend heavily on exposure to a particular language.