The article argues that “AGI” has become a fuzzy umbrella term with conflicting definitions, making it useless for tracking AI progress or predicting major shifts. It urges us to drop AGI in favor of clear, concrete milestones—like fully automated AI R&D, human-level adaptability, or self-sufficient AI—to ground discussions and forecasts.

The article discusses the competitive landscape of artificial general intelligence (AGI) development, likening it to an all-pay auction where participants must invest heavily regardless of the outcome. It argues that this model can lead to inefficiencies and raises concerns about resource allocation in the race towards AGI. The implications of such a competitive framework on innovation and ethical considerations are also explored.