>Contains nothing that makes any sense to me. This is where your whole argument falls down. There's nothing 'empirical' about that claim at all,

Here's what the claim is.

Right now, Gato demonstrated expert performance or better on a set of tasks. https://www.deepmind.com/blog/a-generalist-agent .

So Gato is an AI. You might call it a 'narrow general AI' because it's only better than humans at about 200 tasks, and the average living human likely has a broader skillset.

Thus an AGI - an artificial general intelligence - is one where it's as good as the average human on a set of tasks consistent with the breadth of skills an average living person has.

Basically, make the benchmark larger. 300,000 tasks or 3 million or 30 million. Whatever it has to be. The first machine to do as well as the average human on the benchmark is the world's first AGI.

A score on a cognitive test that you have humans also tested on is an empirical measurement of intelligence.

Arguably, you might also expect generality, simplicity of architecture, and online learning. You would put a lot of points in the benchmark on with-held tasks that use skills other tasks require but in a way the machine won't have seen.

Because we cannot benchmark tasks that can't be automatically graded, this makes it difficult for the AGI to learn things like social interactions. So you are correct, it might be 'autistic'.

It will probably not even have a personality. It's basically a robot where if you tell it to do something, and that something is similar enough to things it has practiced doing, it will be able to do it successfully.

It has no values or morals or emotions - lots of things. Just breadth of skills.