AGI is the wrong term, how do we define progress?

Reddit r/artificial / 4/12/2026

💬 OpinionSignals & Early TrendsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The author argues that the term “AGI” is a category error because it can refer to very different claims, such as passing a Turing test versus achieving consciousness.
  • They claim current frontier models represent a real shift from two years ago, citing more reliable tool calling, better coherence across a session, and improved usefulness as a platform.
  • The piece says this kind of threshold progress deserves its own clearer naming rather than being lumped under “AGI.”
  • It calls for terminology with enough resolution to distinguish past systems from today’s capabilities and potential future developments.
  • The post invites community discussion, particularly around intuitive understanding that it suggests is often glossed over.

If a term can mean anything from "passed a Turing test" to "achieved consciousness", it's not a spectrum - it's a category error.

Current frontier models are meaningfully different from what existed two years ago. Reliable tool calling, coherence across a session, actually being useful to build on top of - none of this worked reliably before. That threshold deserves its own name, and "AGI" is too broken to use for it.

We need terminology with enough resolution to distinguish what we had before, what we have now, and what may come later.

Curious what people think - especially on the intuition point, which I think gets handwaved a lot.

https://breaking-changes.blog/agi-is-here-part-2/

submitted by /u/oakhan3
[link] [comments]