The "Average" Problem: Why AGI is a Moving Goalpost

Search for a command to run...

No comments yet. Be the first to comment.
Riding the Coin Pusher of Life

How to Write Tasks for Humans and Machines

Turn Your Git Repository into an SQL Database with gitstatdb

Hacktoberfest 2025 just finished — and guess what? They brought back the swag!After last year’s digital-only celebration, seeing the return of t-shirts and tree-planting rewards brought a wave of nostalgia and motivation 😊 For some reason, I didn’t ...

devpassion Tech Insights, Open Source & Personal Growth
26 posts
I wear many hats in my professional life - developer, system administrator, and even a teacher at times. You could say I have a mixed bag of skills and experiences, both good and bad. One thing I absolutely love is writing, so you'll find some of my content floating around the web, along with a ton of code.
The pursuit of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) — a concept I learned about this week — is often framed as a climb toward a distant mountain peak. We define it broadly, as an AI that matches or exceeds the sum total of human capability—the ability to reason like a scientist, create like an artist, and synthesize information like a polymath.
However, a quieter, more humbling realization is hidden in that definition.
If we shifted the goalposts and defined AGI as the average of human intelligence, the "intelligence explosion" wouldn't be a future event — it would be a retrospective one.

When we look at the "average" human baseline, we aren't looking at the ability to solve quantum equations or write symphonies. We are looking at a baseline that often struggles with media literacy, falls for basic phishing scams, and engages in circular logic on internet forums (without getting into what we are doing to the planet and with our political system 🤦♂️). By that metric, Large Language Models (LLMs) didn't just meet the average; they soared past it somewhere between GPT-3 and GPT-4.

The humor in this observation masks a technical truth: AI doesn’t need to be "God-like" to be transformative; it only needs to be slightly more competent than the median human at a specific task. We keep moving the goalpost toward the "Sum of Humanity" because if we admitted we’d already reached the "Average," we’d have to face the fact that our machines are already more "human" than we care to admit.
We aren't just building a mirror of our best selves; we are building a tool that proves the "average" was never as high as we thought it was.
Stay calm. We aren’t being replaced by superintelligence yet; we’re just being joined by a very fast version of ourselves."