Gombally

The “it’s not AGI because machine intelligence is jagged” is dumb cope. It’s obviously AGI. If you had a friend who had a 130 IQ, could write production code flawlessly, could write academic papers of a high research caliber, pass any exam in any field with flying colors, create a sophisticate LBO model, draw technical diagrams perfectly, compose poetry in any language, and could find solutions to significant unsolved mathematical problems, you would call that person a world historical genius. Certainly, no single human has ever had intelligence that “general” before. Now you think it’s “not AGI” because it sometimes slips up and makes mistakes - so does any human that you would consider “extraordinarily intelligent.” The professor might forget a colleagues name that he has known for a decade. He is still considered intelligent. The math genius might be a little autistic and shy, unable to maintain polite conversation. Still intelligent. You might stare at the fridge for 30 seconds unable to find the butter, despite 5 million years of evolution perfecting your visual intelligence. We give intelligent humans a pass when they have jagged intelligence. So why the double standard? The qualities people list as “necessary for AGI” are important traits to have, but no longer pertain to intelligence. People will say things like “true AGI requires agency, long term goal setting, embodiment, self-direct action”. But none of those things are intelligence. Those are “things that humans have that AI lacks”. Raw intelligence, AI has it in spades. That other stuff - important yet, but broader than and different from intelligence. The unwillingness of people to acknowledge that AGI obviously exists and has existed for a while is due to a kind of anthropic chauvinism - a psychological need to believe that humans are superior in every respect, that we possess soft skills that no machine could replicate. Yes humans are different from machines, but if we are limiting the discussion solely to general intelligence, AI has it already. That battle is over. If you want to reframe the discussion to matters of human dignity and personhood, fine, but that’s not an AGI question. That’s something else. Just take the loss on AGI already. It’s over.

Marc Andreessen accidentally told the truth about AI

I don't understand how people are still coping about Mythos. Here's a few benchmarks: SWE-bench Pro: Mythos -> 77.8%, GPT-5.5 -> 58.6% HLE: Mythos -> 56.8%, GPT-5.5 -> 41.4% UK AISI cyber ranges: - "The Last Ones": Mythos -> 6/10, GPT-5.5 3/10 - "Cooling Tower": Mythos -> 3/10, GPT-5.5 0/10 ExploitBench: - Mythos -> 18 Arbitrary Code Executions - GPT-5.5 -> 0 Arbitrary Code Executions ExploitGym: - Mythos -> 157 exploits (289.3 LLM calls) - GPT-5.5 -> 120 exploits (375.4 LLM calls) XBOW same story. Mythos has much higher odds of finding vulnerabilities within smaller token budgets.