I did AI back before it was cool and I think we have agi. Imo the whole distinction was from extremely narrow AI to general intelligence. A classifier for engine failure can only do that - a route planner can only do that…

Now we have things I can ask a pretty arbitrary question and they can answer it. Translate, understand nuance (the multitude of ways of parsing sentences, getting sarcasm was an unsolved problem), write code, go and read and find answers elsewhere, use tools… these aren’t one trick ponies.

There are finer points to this where the level of autonomy or learning over time may be important parts to you but to me it was the generality that was the important part. And I think we’re clearly there.

Agi doesn’t have to be human level, and it doesn’t have to be equal to experts in every field all at once.

An interesting perspective: general, absolutely, just nowhere near superhuman in all kinds of tasks. Not even close to human in many. But intelligent? No doubt, far beyond all not entirely unrealistic expectations.

But that seems almost like an unavoidable trade-off. Fiction about the old "AI means logic!" type of AI is full of thought experiments where the logic imposes a limitation and those fictional challenges appear to be just what the AI we have excels at.