This issue here is that people have different definitions of AGI. From the description. Getting 100% on this benchmark would be more than AGI and would qualify for ASI (Algorithmic Super Intelligence) not just AGI.

I’d be hesitant to call that ASI if it’s pretty obvious how you’d write a regular old program to solve it.

If you only outdo humans 50% of the time you're never going to get consensus on if you've qualified. Whereas outdoing 90% of humans on 90% of all the most difficult tasks we could come up with is going to be difficult to argue against.

This benchmark is only one such task. After this one there's still the rest of that 90% to go.

Beating humans isn't anywhere near sufficient to qualify as ASI. That's an entirely different league with criteria that are even more vague.

People are still debating whether these models exhibit any kind of intelligence and any kind of thinking. Setting the bar higher then necessary is welcome, but at this point I’m pretty sure everyone’s opinions are set in stone.