We seem to largely agree but I wanted to respond to this one bit:

> you get this god-of-the-gaps like problem where everytime we find something that looks and feels truly intelligent by yesterday's standards that intelligence will be crammed into a slightly smaller space excluding the thing that just became possible.

It's important to distinguish between "AI" and "AGI" here. I haven't seen many objections that the frontier models of the past year or so don't qualify as AI (whatever that might or might not mean) and the ones I have seen don't seem to hold much water.

However there's a constant stream of bogus claims presenting some new feat as "AGI" upon which each time we collectively stop and revise our working definition to close the latest loophole for something that is very obviously not AGI. Thus IMO legal loophole is a more fitting description than god of the gaps.

I do think we're nearing human level in general and have already exceeded it in specific tightly constrained domains but I don't think that was ever the common understanding of AGI. Go watch 80s movies and they've got humanoid robots walking around doing freeform housework while chatting with the homeowner. Meanwhile transferring dirty laundry from a hamper to the drum remains a cutting edge research problem for us, let alone wielding kitchen knives or handling things on the stovetop.