Not sure how to answer because we were off on a tangent there about mental models.

I think AGI is two things. Intelligence at a given task, which can be scored versus humans or otherwise. And generalization which is entirely separate. We already have superhuman non-general models in a few domains.

So I don't think that "better than AGI at % of humans" is a sensible statement, at least not initially.

Right now humans generalize to all integers while AI companies keep manually adding additional integers to a finite list and bystanders make claims of generality. If you've still got a finite list you aren't general regardless of how long the list is.

If at some point a model shows up that works on all even integers but not odd ones then I guess you could reasonably claim you had AGI that was 50% of what humans achieve. If a model that generalizes to all the reals shows up then it will have exceeded human generality by an infinite degree. We'll cross those bridges when we come to them - I don't think we're there yet.