I am not sure if it is necessarily moving the goalposts. I think AGI is such a fuzzy concept that everybody has wildly different definitions/tests for it.

I think it's also mostly a useless discussion. Since LLMs use a vastly different substrate, different training methods, etc. than humans, the cognitive abilities are always going to be a large mismatch to those of humans. On the one hand, they have surpassed humans in many areas, with superhuman recall, exploration of several paths, etc. On the other hand, they miss a certain feel for direction, overview, purpose, and ordering. They can really double down going completely in the wrong direction. So I'd rather say that it is a different intelligence and therefore it makes more sense to evaluate them by capabilities.

I think the mismatching intelligence is actually quite exciting, because the outcome may as well be that LLMs and human intelligence are complementary. That is if we don't let LLMs atrophy our skills, which is unfortunately happening too much.

Make it be able to position and route a complex pcb. Extra points if it also can design the circuit, select the components and make the footprints out of their datasheets.

A bayesian filter in a quadrillion dimension does more that one that only has one dimension, but it is only more of the same.

Exactly. When did AGI mean "do something almost no humans can do"?

So humans wouldn't qualify for AGI either. Good to know.

Did anyone ever claim that Humans are "general intelligence"?

Individually we are specialized intelligence. As a society we are absolutely a General Intelligence though

As I see it, even if you disregard the job of a person, ot their hobbies, or whatever intellectual activity that only a subset of the population engages with, you are left with a machine that talks, moves, drives, reads, writes, lies convincingly enough, manages money, enjoys a movie and can explain the plot and find plotholes and racord mistakes, etc.

That's millions of light years ahead than any current AI that only looks up very fast the solution space for code, language or math.

Not to mention that humans can do all of that stuff while fueled only by a can of Mt Dew and a bag of cheezies.

> Did anyone ever claim that Humans are "general intelligence"?

Right. So you admit that what we're looking for now is super human. Not just human, but more than human.

That's those goalposts I was talking about.

A bit like calling a crane "superhuman strength"

I mean sure, but who cares? It's a machine.

The same way an excavator is not judged by human standards, neither should AI be. It's a machine

Yes, I would call a crane superhuman strength. I think that's exactly what it should be called.

Requiring the intelligence to be above human is a shifted goalpost. Full stop.

Anyone can do what I said with the minimum amount of training. Once you've done one or two pcbs it becomes rather menial except for some critical signal here and there.

LLM struggle with even the most simple PCBs, how can one say they are minimally intelligent in that case?

So you admit that most humans can't do it.

> Anyone can do what I said with the minimum amount of training.

I'll bet you ten bucks that is not in the least bit true.

EDIT: Heh - I just did a bit of research - apparently agents do a fine job with simple PCB boards - but we shouldn't expect them to replace experts. "Experts" being the key word. Exactly what I said.

https://hackaday.com/2026/09/05/can-ai-now-design-pcbs-that-...

Uh, why does that need a stronger term than just “AI”?

I don’t feel like the goal posts have moved at all. I think most of us have a pretty good and stable intuition of what AGI should be. Like, just a generally intelligent robot for instance? Nothing too fancy. Just use one of those robot dogs. Don’t have to be smarter than a dog either. But you should be able to put an artificial brain in it and have something that can act about as intelligently as a dog, in a stable way, over the course of 10 years.

Hell, to make the bar even easier: could make it a believable NPC dog in a game.

We’ve pushed AI as close to edge of AGI as I could imagine. It’s hard not to think we’ll find some algorithm that pushes us over the edge fairly soon. But until we actually get there, let’s not exaggerate.

I mean, when we do get an AI algorithm that can actually learn like a human/animal intelligence.. what would we call it if we’ve already used “AGI”? “Very General Artificial Intelligence”?

I’m almost more inclined to start using “ASI” first. Even if our LLMs are not general in the way I’m thinking of, they’re clearly superior to an average human on every aspect they’ve been trained on. They’re also much faster. We can probably soon say “if you can train an AI on something it will be better than any human”.

> I don’t feel like the goal posts have moved at all.

10 years ago the Turing test was sufficient.

yeah the tt is a funny thing. we basically built and trained llms to the test... here is a prompt here is what a human would respond, copy that. I'm sure in the classic actual test parameters you could get llms to pass it. But we've had pre llm systems designed to the classic test that could fool a human too, which nobody would argue is agi.

maybe it is moving the goalposts by saying the classic test parameters are too narrow and humans are not actually that good at administering that test. But in the spirit of the turing test i think its pretty clear we haven't crossed it just yet in a general way. It's still pretty obvious when we are interacting with the machines. even when we arent chatting with them. genai images video, documents they create, webpages, etc. Not that its impossible to be tricked here or there or be unsure but id say the core idea of the turning test is still valid and that current llms and their outputs aren't generally passing it.

like for example you probably have a good idea right now if im an llm or wrote this comment purely out of my squishy human brain. that you can still somewhat regularly do that means the turing concept could still be sufficient even if we need to adjust the parameters of the actual test.

I think you should research the Turing test. It's a philosophical argument about what intelligence means. The LLMs weren't tuned to the test - they were tuned to intelligence.

And no - no software came anywhere close to passing it prior to LLMs. And yes, LLMs have now passed it.