We should rewrite the definition of this article by including the different performance levels of general AI which are already mentioned in the article body, as the current definition given in the lead is quite vague:
"[...] match or surpass human capabilities across virtually all cognitive tasks" – which humans? It can't mean all humans as that would be the definition of ASI. It also can't mean any human since this would imply that we have already achieved AGI, as ChatGPT is a general-purpose AI that is equal to (or somewhat better) than a completely untrained and unskilled human across virtually all cognitive tasks.
Most researchers and academics probably refer to the cognitive equivalent of an average trained human when they mention AGI, which would arguably be classified as a "Competent AGI" on Google DeepMind's performance scale (≥50 percentile of a skilled adult); while anything above that would be approaching ASI. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
ChatGPT is a general-purpose AI that is equal to (or somewhat better) than a completely untrained and unskilled human across virtually all cognitive tasks.
Do you have a reliable source for this claim? Elestrophe (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- ChatGPT is classified as an "Emerging AGI" system by Google DeepMind on their performance scale, which they define as a general AI "equal to or somewhat better than an unskilled human": https://aibusiness.com/ml/what-exactly-is-artificial-general-intelligence-ask-deepmind- Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, but that only shows that DeepMind's researchers believe this, which is not the same as showing that this (quite extraordinary) claim is true. Elestrophe (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, but that can be said about the conclusions of every source you could possibly imagine, including scientific studies and professional examinations. By that logic, no non-objective claim could ever be fully verified. Maxeto0910 (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Anyway, regardless of whether or not this statement made by DeepMind is valid, it's certainly important to be precise when defining the capabilities of AGI, as we are arguably crossing a line now where the borders are fluid between the different interpretations of what constitutes AGI; although there is one broad and widely agreed-upon definition of what is AGI, there are several interpretations of and associated approaches to measuring when it is reached, which is why it's crucial to quantify the vague term "human capabilities" to ensure we have a solid basis and are at least to some extent talking about the same thing. Maxeto0910 (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- it refers to average human it not hard, ie 100 IQ human is the average. O1Proando3ASI (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think so too, at least that's the intelligence level most people refer to when they talk about AGI: an averagely intelligent, trained human. It's important to clarify this aspect in the definition. Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- perhaps rather then modifying the introduction it may be useful to add short part about something like AGI and Human Intellgence as it own section somewhere on the page O1Proando3ASI (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Most people seem to define AGI based on what the average human can do, similarly to Google DeepMind's "Competent AGI". But sometimes discussions on whether an AI is AGI focus on tasks that only a small fraction of humans can do, like coding or research. Since there is vagueness in how people use the term, it may not be bad for the Wikipedia definition to also be vague in way that encompasses multiple possible definitions. So I'm ok with the current definition, but not necessarily against changing it. Feel free to propose a new definition here, or to make a bold edit. Alenoach (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
But sometimes discussions on whether an AI is AGI focus on tasks that only a small fraction of humans can do, like coding or research.
Yes, but I think it has been long settled in academic discussions that AGI encompasses being able to perform (virtually) all cognitive tasks a human could do.
it may not be bad for the Wikipedia definition to also be vague in way that encompasses multiple possible definitions
I'm fine with being vague and using various definitions as well, but in that case we should explain the vagueness and state that the term AGI, in most contexts, refers to an averagely intelligent, trained human, making this the primary definition. Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
