I'm pretty sure they were asking for a pinned date for definitions of "economically valuable" and "most (of total economic value)", specifically because, as previous comments noted, the definition and quantity of "economic value" vary over time. If AI hype is to be believed, and if we assume AGI has a slow takeoff, the economy will look very different in 2030, significantly shifting the goalposts for AGI relative to the same definition as of 2026.
Well if humans can do economically valuable mental work the AI can't then its not AGI, don't you think? An AGI could learn that new job too and replace the human, so as long as we still have economically valuable mental work that only humans can do then we haven't reached AGI.
This is a strange binary I don't understand. There are humans that can't do the work of some humans. Intelligence is, clearly, a spectrum. I don't see why a general intelligence would need to have capabilities far beyond a human, when just replacing somewhat lacking humans could upend large portions of the economy. Again, "it's not AGI" arguments will eventually require that some humans aren't considered intelligent, which is the point in time that we'll all be able to agree "ok, this is AGI".
As catlifeonmars noted, what's valuable changes over time.
But beyond that, part of the nature of that change over time is that things tend to be valuable because they're scarce.
So the definition from upthread becomes roughly "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at [useful things where the ability to do those things is scarce]", or alternatively "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at [useful things that can't be automated]".
Which only makes sense if the reflexive (it's dependent on the thing being observed) part that I'm substituting in brackets is pinned to a specific as-of date. Because if it's floating / references the current date that that definition is being evaluated for, the definition is nonsensical.
I'd argue it's so vague it's already nonsensical. Can we not declare Google (search) AGI? It sure does a hell of a lot of stuff better than any human I now. Same with the calculator in my desk drawer. Even by broom does a far better job sweeping than I do. My hands just aren't made for sweeping.
But to extend your point, I think we really need to be explicit about the assumptions being made. Everyone loves to say intelligence is easy to define but if it were then we'd have a definition. But if "you" figure it out and it's so simple then "we" are all too dumb and it needs better explaining for our poor simple minds. Or there's a lot of details that make it hard to pin down and that's why there's not a definition of it yet. Kinda like how there's no formal definition of life
I think you're conflating "knowledge" with "intelligence". And, "agency" seems to be a missing concept, which is the only way for something intelligent to apply its knowledge to achieve something practical, on its own.
Google search can't achieve anything practical, because it has no agency. It has no agency partly because it doesn't have the required intelligence to do anything on its own, other than display results for something else, that does have agency, to use.
The applicable definitions, from the dictionary:
Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Agency: the ability to make decisions and act independently.
