> For the many people who resist the AGI label possibly ever being achieved, I'd be curious to hear takes on what would make you think Astra is yet to be AGI, and what would still need to be achieved for this to effectively be AGI from this point forward.

I think I have the following questions about what AGI would look like:

1. Do you expect an AGI to be able to competently do any knowledge work that an able human does today?

I think this is implied by the "General" component. I would assume that anything we call AGI would be able to do any of these tasks if given the time and reference material needed.

2. How would you expect AGI to handle edge cases? (Missing context, no known solution, under specified instructions, over specified instructions)

I would expect an agent to be able to look at the context that work exists in and correctly attenuate it's intentions for these goals. Simpler solutions, more thorough reporting, etc based on the need.

3. In my work I attend meetings, write reports, write code, research things, etc. Would AGI be able to reliably do that?

I would say that AGI would need to do this. I would classify this as the "Intelligence" component. Obtaining context, building a model of a problem, solving it, and convincing others.

4. Would it be able to inspire trust in itself? Trust can be established through verification of it's outputs, the construction of introspective tools, no hallucinations, etc.

I would say yes to this as well. It would be a component of the "Intelligence" to know that buy in is more important than the completion of a task.

To these points, will Astra be able to do these things? If not, I would hesitate to call it AGI.