I think that if today's capabilities were explained to someone 10-20 years ago they would think this is definitely AGI, but they would also have expected much more disruptive changes to society as a result than what is happening. I figure that's because we have abstract intelligence without physical/grounded intelligence, and it turns out the former isn't general enough to implement the latter (remains to be seen if the word after that is "yet" or "ever"). So I think we do have AGI as conventionally understood, but our understanding needs recalibration.

No, because it has never meant a specific thing that everyone agreed on.

Remember when The Verge was not a pay-walled visual headache?

I think the last re-re-redefinition of what OpenAI considered AGI was "It can mostly do the job of some people"

Remember when “Pepperidge farm remembers” meant something?

No, I really don't