I feel like AGI's definition got watered down, and these tests do not cover the original definition, what is your definition and thoughts on aligning with what all of us understood from the original claim?

I feel like this test is just helping someone like Sam Altman pretend like he implemented AGI as originally pitched for an IPO when in fact, he has not. Shameful.

> AGI is essentially the equivalent of a median human that could be hired as a remote co-worker... capable of performing any task that one would be satisfied with a remote colleague doing via a computer.

- Sam Altman on AGI

>When we released ARC 3, I got asked, "when do you think a frontier model will saturate it?", and I answered "in about a year, though it depends on how much it gets explicitly targeted"

You're treating an off-hand comment by an ARC 3 researcher as some sort of a precise AI capability acceleration benchmark. Can we leave casual anecdotes (even from researchers) out of the discussions please?

Well it's not exactly saturated when OAI refused to use the harness explicitly provided by ARC-AGI. I'm not really familiar enough with the benchmark to declare whether it's a perfect measure for AGI, but I kind of doubt it is.

You'll also need to compare the amount of compute used now and then, which seems exponential to me.

2x faster at what resolution? is 6mo vs 1 year really that different? Usually surprise comes in order of magnitude mismatches in expectations.

Human brains have difficulty reasoning about exponential growth.