Repeating that we don't have a definition isn't helping anything except vapid blog posts having another thing to debate. I'll give one that I believe. It's the practical ability to use AI for most things that humans do at human levels of competence, without specifically being trained for each. There is no requirement for AGI actually think/reason beyond practical measures.

It's evidently fueled a healthy debate here and you've tossed your opinion in the ring because of it.

I think you're on to something - we need a measure of what is considered "human levels of competence" or some bar by which we say "ok this is consistent enough"