Evaluation of potential AGI systems and methods is difficult due to the breadth of the engineering goal. We have no methods for perfect evaluation of the end state, and instead measure performance on small tests designed to provide directional indication that we are approaching AGI. In this work we argue that AGI evaluation methods have been dominated by a design philosophy that uses our intuitions of what intelligence is to create synthetic tasks, that have performed poorly in the history of AI. Instead we argue for an alternative design philosophy focused on evaluating robust task execution that seeks to demonstrate AGI through competence. This perspective is developed from common practices in data science that are used to show that a system can be reliably deployed. We provide practical examples of what this would mean for AGI evaluation.

Safety, trust and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) are aspirational goals in artificial intelligence (AI) systems, and there are several informal interpretations of these notions. In this paper, we propose strict, mathematical definitions of safety, trust, and AGI, and demonstrate a fundamental incompatibility between them. We define safety of a system as the property that it never makes any false claims, trust as the assumption that the system is safe, and AGI as the property of an AI system always matching or exceeding human capability. Our core finding is that -- for our formal definitions of these notions -- a safe and trusted AI system cannot be an AGI system: for such a safe, trusted system there are task instances which are easily and provably solvable by a human but not by the system. We note that we consider strict mathematical definitions of safety and trust, and it is possible for real-world deployments to instead rely on alternate, practical interpretations of these notions. We show our results for program verification, planning, and graph reachability. Our proofs draw parallels to Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Turing's proof of the undecidability of the halting problem, and can be regarded as interpretations of Gödel's and Turing's results.

This report presents a taxonomy and examples of potential omnicidal events resulting from AI: scenarios where all or almost all humans are killed. These events are not presented as inevitable, but as possibilities that we can work to avoid. Insofar as large institutions require a degree of public support in order to take certain actions, we hope that by presenting these possibilities in public, we can help to support preventive measures against catastrophic risks from AI.

Can machines truly think, reason and act in domains like humans? This enduring question continues to shape the pursuit of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Despite the growing capabilities of models such as GPT-4.5, DeepSeek, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Phi-4, and Grok 3, which exhibit multimodal fluency and partial reasoning, these systems remain fundamentally limited by their reliance on token-level prediction and lack of grounded agency. This paper offers a cross-disciplinary synthesis of AGI development, spanning artificial intelligence, cognitive neuroscience, psychology, generative models, and agent-based systems. We analyze the architectural and cognitive foundations of general intelligence, highlighting the role of modular reasoning, persistent memory, and multi-agent coordination. In particular, we emphasize the rise of Agentic RAG frameworks that combine retrieval, planning, and dynamic tool use to enable more adaptive behavior. We discuss generalization strategies, including information compression, test-time adaptation, and training-free methods, as critical pathways toward flexible, domain-agnostic intelligence. Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are reexamined not just as perception modules but as evolving interfaces for embodied understanding and collaborative task completion. We also argue that true intelligence arises not from scale alone but from the integration of memory and reasoning: an orchestration of modular, interactive, and self-improving components where compression enables adaptive behavior. Drawing on advances in neurosymbolic systems, reinforcement learning, and cognitive scaffolding, we explore how recent architectures begin to bridge the gap between statistical learning and goal-directed cognition. Finally, we identify key scientific, technical, and ethical challenges on the path to AGI.

We articulate here a series of specific metagoals designed to address the challenge of creating AGI systems that possess the ability to flexibly self-modify yet also have the propensity to maintain key invariant properties of their goal systems 1) a series of goal-stability metagoals aimed to guide a system to a condition in which goal-stability is compatible with reasonably flexible self-modification 2) a series of moderated-goal-evolution metagoals aimed to guide a system to a condition in which control of the pace of goal evolution is compatible with reasonably flexible self-modification The formulation of the metagoals is founded on fixed-point theorems from functional analysis, e.g. the Contraction Mapping Theorem and constructive approximations to Schauder's Theorem, applied to probabilistic models of system behavior We present an argument that the balancing of self-modification with maintenance of goal invariants will often have other interesting cognitive side-effects such as a high degree of self understanding Finally we argue for the practical value of a hybrid metagoal combining moderated-goal-evolution with pursuit of goal-stability -- along with potentially other metagoals relating to goal-satisfaction, survival and ongoing development -- in a flexible fashion depending on the situation

Mark Zuckerberg has been accused of taking an irresponsible approach to artificial intelligence after committing to building a powerful AI system on a par with human levels of intelligence. The Facebook founder has also raised the prospect of making it freely available to the public. The Meta chief executive has said the company will attempt to build an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system and make it open source, meaning it will be accessible to developers outside the company. The system should be made "as widely available as we responsibly can", he added. In a Facebook post, Zuckerberg said it was clear that the next generation of tech services "requires building full general intelligence".

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) has gained global recognition as a future technology due to the emergence of breakthrough large language models and chatbots such as GPT-4 and ChatGPT, respectively. Compared to conventional AI models, typically designed for a limited range of tasks, demand significant amounts of domain-specific data for training and may not always consider intricate interpersonal dynamics in education. AGI, driven by the recent large pre-trained models, represents a significant leap in the capability of machines to perform tasks that require human-level intelligence, such as reasoning, problem-solving, decision-making, and even understanding human emotions and social interactions. This position paper reviews AGI's key concepts, capabilities, scope, and potential within future education, including achieving future educational goals, designing pedagogy and curriculum, and performing assessments. It highlights that AGI can significantly improve intelligent tutoring systems, educational assessment, and evaluation procedures. AGI systems can adapt to individual student needs, offering tailored learning experiences. They can also provide comprehensive feedback on student performance and dynamically adjust teaching methods based on student progress. The paper emphasizes that AGI's capabilities extend to understanding human emotions and social interactions, which are critical in educational settings. The paper discusses that ethical issues in education with AGI include data bias, fairness, and privacy and emphasizes the need for codes of conduct to ensure responsible AGI use in academic settings like homework, teaching, and recruitment. We also conclude that the development of AGI necessitates interdisciplinary collaborations between educators and AI engineers to advance research and application efforts.

There is a disagreement among professionals over artificial general intelligence definition. Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the capacity for machines to perceive, learn, and carry out intellectual tasks in a manner similar to that of humans. AGI allows machines to mimic human behavior and thought processes in order to tackle any kind of complex problem. The performance of these machines is identical to that of humans due to their design, which includes comprehensive knowledge and cognitive computing skills. Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the software representation of generalized human cognitive capabilities so that the AGI system can come up with a solution when presented with a challenging issue. AGI systems are designed to carry out any task that humans are capable of. Because specialists in various domains interpret human intelligence differently, there are many possible definitions of AGI.

Charles Simon, BSEE, MSCs, is the founder and CEO of Future AI: Technologies that Think. Within the next decade, artificial general intelligence (AGI)--the ability of computer systems to understand, learn and respond as humans do--is expected to emerge. And while it's relatively easy to cite benefits that AGI could produce, it is equally important to note that the risks of AGI are very real. In the short-term, the risks associated with AGI typically revolve around job displacement. Truthfully, this is something that likely would occur with or without AGI.

AI Researcher, Cognitive Technologist Inventor - AI Thinking, Think Chain Innovator - AIOT, XAI, Autonomous Cars, IIOT Founder Fisheyebox Spatial Computing Savant, Transformative Leader, Industry X.0 Practitioner Computer systems based on AGI technology ('AGIs') are specifically engineered to be able to learn. They are able to acquire a wide range of knowledge and skills via learning, similar to the way we do. Unlike current computer systems, AGIs do not need to be programmed to do new tasks. Instead, they are simply instructed and taught by humans. Additionally, these systems can learn by themselves both implicitly'on-the-job', and explicitly by reading and practicing.