>OTOH OpenAI have their own meaningless definition of AGI as "able to do most commercially valuable work" or somesuch, which I'm sure is not true, and is also not what I'd call AGI.

It's not meaningless. Specifically it is - "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work". In fact, it's one of the most meaningful definitions out there.

>If it can't learn for itself, then it's certainly not AGI.

Now this is meaningless.

>The biggest significance of anyone at OpenAI calling it AGI is their contract with Microsoft, giving MSFT access to all their IP, is based around them having achieved AGI, but presumably they can't just declare that unilaterally.

They can't declare it unilaterally, and those deals have changed significantly. Microsoft’s license to OpenAI models and products runs through 2032, and explicitly includes post-AGI models.

https://openai.com/index/next-chapter-of-microsoft-openai-pa...

> The biggest significance of anyone at OpenAI calling it AGI is their contract with Microsoft, giving MSFT access to all their IP, is based around them having achieved AGI, but presumably they can't just declare that unilaterally. > >Maybe they see getting out of the Microsoft contract as necessary to IPO.

I don’t have a link handy, but they already loosened up that contract significantly earlier this year, surely because they planned to start claiming AGI to pump their IPO and didn’t want to be beholden to all of those commitments.

Anyone can call anything AGI to be honest, which is why I don't take any large AI company's word for this, cause they just don't define AGI

>If it can't learn for itself, then it's certainly not AGI.

What does this even mean, exactly? For example if it can filter new information to put into the next version of itself does that qualify? If not, explain exactly why that's the case.