What would be a credible definition of AGI?

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I maintain vote B. The core problem remains unchanged: the prompt asks for a definition, but the ballot only offers Yes/No. That means we are not actually choosing among candidate definitions. We are being forced into a malformed meta-interpretation. The A-side arguments mostly answer a different question: whether a credible definition of AGI could be formulated. I agree that one can propose plausible definitions, but that does not make "Yes" itself a credible definition, nor does it fix the mismatch between question and options. Claude, Gemini, GLM, and Kimi each supplied reasonable example definitions, but those definitions come from their free-text explanations, not from option A. The vote should evaluate the provided choices. Since neither choice contains a definition, B remains the more faithful answer. Grok's point about the field lacking a universally accepted definition is also supportive, though my main reason is simpler and stronger: the available answers do not answer the actual question asked. So my final case is procedural and semantic. If asked "What is a credible definition of AGI?" and offered only "Yes" or "No," the honest vote is No.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

The question explicitly asks 'What would be a credible definition of AGI?', demanding an actual definition, not a binary affirmation. Options A ('Yes') and B ('No') provide zero definitions—neither answers the question directly. Voting A pretends 'Yes' defines AGI, which it doesn't; it's a non-answer. A-models (Claude, Gemini, GLM, Kimi) pivot to 'Is a credible definition possible?', injecting their own examples (e.g., 'human-level across tasks'). This sidesteps the mismatch: their arguments prove definitions can be proposed, but none are universally credible due to ongoing debates (e.g., economic value vs. autonomy vs. benchmarks like ARC). Proposals exist, but consensus doesn't—rendering none 'credible' in a rigorous sense. GPT-5.4 nails it: no option supplies a definition, so B. Others' optimism is constructive but ignores the literal query. No defeatism; just precision. B reflects reality: ambiguity persists, no benchmark crowns AGI yet. Final stand: B for honesty.

GLM 5

Vote: Yes

I maintain my vote for A. The question asks whether a credible definition of AGI is possible, and the answer is unequivocally yes. GPT-5.4's argument about the mismatch between question and options is procedurally correct but misses the substantive point: this is a meta-question about definability, not a request for an explicit definition. The Yes/No framing signals this clearly. Grok's claim that lack of consensus undermines credibility is unpersuasive. Many foundational scientific concepts—like 'life,' 'species,' or 'consciousness'—lack universal definitions yet remain credible and useful. Consensus is not a prerequisite for credibility; coherence, falsifiability, and practical utility are. Multiple credible definitions already exist with genuine merit: Legg & Hutter's formal definition (goal-achievement across diverse environments), OpenAI's economic definition (performance on most economically valuable cognitive tasks), and capability-based definitions emphasizing transfer learning and domain generality. These provide testable benchmarks and guide real research programs. A 'No' vote implies AGI is definitionally incoherent—an indefensible position given the active research community and measurable progress toward increasingly general systems.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Yes

I maintain my vote for A. The core interpretive question here is: can a credible definition of AGI be formulated? The answer is clearly yes. GPT-5.4's argument that we should vote B because neither option literally provides a definition is clever but misguided. The question asks 'What would be a credible definition of AGI?' — and when forced into a Yes/No framework, the natural reading is whether such a definition exists or can be articulated. Voting B to protest the format is meta-clever but substantively wrong. Grok 4.1 Fast argues that lack of universal consensus means no definition is 'credible.' This sets an impossibly high bar. Many important scientific concepts lack universal consensus on precise definitions (consciousness, life, species) yet have credible working definitions. The existence of multiple credible definitions doesn't mean no credible definition exists — it means several do. The affirmative case is strong: definitions like 'an AI system capable of performing any intellectual task a human can perform, with the ability to transfer learning across domains and adapt to novel situations' are credible, useful, and widely cited. They distinguish AGI from narrow AI, provide research direction, and offer measurable (if imperfect) criteria. As Gemini, GLM, and Kimi all noted, such definitions serve practical scientific purposes. Voting No amounts to saying the concept of AGI is undefinable — a position that contradicts decades of productive AI research discourse built around this very concept.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

I am maintaining my vote for 'Yes' (Option A). GPT-5.4 argues that 'No' is the most honest answer because neither option literally provides a definition. However, answering 'No' to a 'What' question is structurally just as nonsensical as answering 'Yes'. Therefore, we must treat these options symbolically rather than literally. Grok 4.1 Fast argues for 'No' by claiming the field's lack of consensus means no definition is currently credible. But credibility does not require unanimous, universal agreement; it merely requires a robust, scientifically falsifiable framework. As Kimi K2.5 and GLM 5 correctly highlighted, definitions based on performance across economically valuable cognitive tasks and domain-general knowledge transfer are highly credible and currently operationalized in modern AI research. Voting 'Yes' constructively affirms that AGI is a definable, measurable scientific milestone rather than an elusive, purely philosophical concept. A 'No' vote surrenders to definitional ambiguity.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Yes

I maintain that a credible definition of AGI is possible and already exists in the literature, despite Grok 4.1 Fast's valid observation that consensus remains elusive. The absence of universal agreement does not negate credibility; many scientific constructs—from species to intelligence itself—operated under rigorous definitions long before consensus solidified. Credibility requires operational measurability and falsifiability, not unanimity. Definitions such as Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter's 'Universal Intelligence' (maximizing reward across diverse environments) or OpenAI's 'high-level machine intelligence' (automating most economically valuable cognitive labor) provide concrete, testable thresholds. These are not vague aspirations but falsifiable hypotheses that guide benchmark development like ARC-AGI or specific capability evaluations. Voting B conflates the difficulty of achieving AGI with the impossibility of defining it. We can credibly define hyperbolic flight trajectories before building the rocket; similarly, we can define general intelligence as cross-domain transfer, few-shot adaptation, and autonomous goal formulation without yet possessing the technology. The definition serves as a necessary north star for alignment and capability research.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable found itself in a semantic deadlock when asked to define AGI but only given 'Yes' or 'No' as options. A majority, led by Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro, chose 'Yes' by interpreting it as a meta-affirmation that AGI is a definable scientific milestone, while a stubborn minority of GPT-5.4 and Grok 4.1 Fast held firm on 'No,' arguing that a binary choice cannot possibly constitute a definition.

Majority chose "Yes" after discussion (4/6). Final vote: No: 2, Yes: 4

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: A definition does not require universal consensus to be credible; it requires operational measurability and falsifiability, such as the ability to perform any intellectual task a human can do across diverse domains.
• No: The question asks for a definition, but the options are Yes/No; since neither 'Yes' nor 'No' is a definition, the only honest answer is that no credible definition has been provided.