>> To me, this is more or less what I would think "Artificial General Intelligence" is

So then you need to explain ARC-AGI-3: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.24621

"Our testing shows humans can solve 100% of the environments, in contrast to frontier AI systems which, as of March 2026, score below 1%."

Back 1996, EQP automatically solved the Robbins conjecture. But nobody concluded EQP was generally intelligent.

https://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/papers/robbins/

> So then you need to explain ARC-AGI-3: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.24621

I don't, we originally had the turing test which was designed to determine human intelligence by its ability to imitate us with natural dialogue, but we've since defeated that. I stated "to me" because it's my personal opinion on a definition whose goalpost will probably never stop being moved.

> Back 1996, EQP automatically solved the Robbins conjecture. But nobody concluded EQP was generally intelligent.

EQP doesn't have the 3 criteria I outlined, which were different than "solving a math problem"