Wouldn't "general intelligence" require so much more than scoring well (or even amazingly) on benchmarks?

Like what about having some "AGI model" embodied in something (maybe humanoid), and test it by having it step in an assortment of cars and park them. Does bodily-kinesthetic intelligence account for nothing? Humans are intelligent creatures and can dynamically adapt to the physical shape of a variety of vehicles and their movement characteristics. And there's so many things like this that are extremely basic, which some people dismiss since practically every human has the capability to do it, but actually requires a high degree of intelligence.

This is a big reason why I feel like even though LLMs are _effectively_ AGI in some regard, they also are a hack around what most people figured AGI would look like before the advent of LLMs. Humans can do metacognition, output multimodally at the same time (verbal _and_ physical intelligence go together to produce an expressive face while one talks), have a good sense for what they do and don't know, continuously take in and respond to the world around them in a (mostly) uninterrupted fashion without "turns", learn knew knowledge and retain it for their whole lives, etc. When you reduce a human to a text generator, yes obviously SOTA LLMs perform way better, but rather than invent something that can operate as an always-running "being", we've grafted a harness around an intelligence that is bound purely to speak only when spoken to. Maybe organic intelligence is already that, playing out at a super high refresh rate, but I don't know.

This is a much underappreciated point.

That said, a look at the state of self driving and the recent robot olympics shows that advancement on that has accelerated enormously, though whether it's reflected in any of the LLMs is something else entirely.

What you've described is just a new benchmark, though. It'll be called CarParkBench, various embodied LLMs will then be run against that benchmark, and some will score better than others.

I do see where you're going, but that's already what's happening: we have so many different benchmarks because there's no real single way to test for general intelligence.

Also, it takes a human probably at least a decade of world experience, growth, learning, etc, to pass your benchmark. I'm quite confident that it will be very soon that an embodied LLM will pass your new benchmark, much sooner than a human would take if born today.

AGI has a pretty precise definition, covering only cognitive tasks.

Running a marathon is not needed to claim AGI.