It performs at a usable level across a wide range of tasks. I'm not sure about two years ago, but ten years ago we would have called it an AGI. As opposed to "regular AI" where you have to assemble a training set for your specific problem, then train an AI on it before you can get your answers.

Now our idea of what qualifies as AGI has shifted substantially. We keep looking at what we have and decide that that can't possibly be AGI, our definition of AGI must have been wrong

Some people thought SHRDLU was basically AGI after seeing its demo in 1970. The hype around such systems was so strong that Hubert Dreyfus felt the need to write an entire book arguing against this viewpoint (1972 What Computers Can't Do). All this demonstrates is that we need to be careful with various claims about computer intelligence.

If you didn't call GPT 3.5 AGI I do not believe you when you claim you would have called 5.5 AGI.

I agree with this but they don’t. And that’s the the thing, AGI as they refer is much much much more than what we have, and I don’t know if they are going to ever get there and I’m not sure what’s even there at this point and what will justify their investments.

... until you actually, like, use it and find out all the limitations it has.

GPT 4 was 3 years ago... it's iterative enhancement.

And I've been told my job (litigation attorney) is about to be replaced for over 3 years now, has yet to come close.

If you present ELIZA to people some will think it is AGI today.

There is a reason so many scams happen with technology. It is too easy to fool people.