Jagged AGI: o3, Gemini 2.5, and everything after

Coining "Jagged AGI" to work around the fact that nobody agrees on a definition for AGI is a clever piece of writing:

> In some tasks, AI is unreliable. In others, it is superhuman. You could, of course, say the same thing about calculators, but it is also clear that AI is different. It is already demonstrating general capabilities and performing a wide range of intellectual tasks, including those that it is not specifically trained on. Does that mean that o3 and Gemini 2.5 are AGI? Given the definitional problems, I really don’t know, but I do think they can be credibly seen as a form of “Jagged AGI” - superhuman in enough areas to result in real changes to how we work and live, but also unreliable enough that human expertise is often needed to figure out where AI works and where it doesn’t.

I don't think that's a particularly honest line of thinking though. It preempts the obvious counterargument, but very weakly so. Calculators are different, but why? Can an ensemble of a calculator, a Prolog interpreter, Alexnet and Stockfish be considered "jagged superintelligence"? They are all clearly superhuman, and yet require human experience to be wielded effectively.

I'm guilty as charged of having looked at GPT 3.5 and having thought "it's meh", but more than anything this is showing that debating words rather than the underlying capabilities is an empty discussion.

>Calculators are different, but why? Can an ensemble of a calculator, a Prolog interpreter, Alexnet and Stockfish be considered "jagged superintelligence"?

Those are all different things with little to nothing to do with each other. It's like saying what if I ensemble a snake and cat ? What does that even mean ? GPT-N or whatever is a single model that can do many things, no ensembling required. That's the difference between it and a calculator or stockfish.