Note: This post was crossposted from Planned Obsolescence by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post.

Subtitle: No, we don't "have AGI already." But in any case, we should articulate clearer milestones.

Happy New Year! Planned Obsolescence, an occasional newsletter about AI futurism edited by Ajeya Cotra, has moved to Substack.

Every so often, there's Discourse about whether we already have artificial general intelligence (AGI). For example, Dean Ball recently claimed that Claude Opus 4.5 was basically AGI, or at least met OpenAI's definition of AGI. Many AI x-risk people, including me, pushed back on this.

OpenAI's definition of AGI is “highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work.” Wikipedia defines AGI similarly, as “a type of artificial intelligence that would match or surpass human capabilities across virtually all cognitive tasks.” I don’t in fact think Claude Opus 4.5 meets these definitions. There are a number of useful cognitive things people do that Opus 4.5 cannot yet do (e.g. managing a profitable vending machine).[1]

But at the end of the day, I’m not going to fight you much if you want to say [...]

---

Outline:

(01:57) A sharper milestone

(03:35) What would it take?

(05:50) What I like about this milestone

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.