Perhaps the goalposts were always in the wrong place.
AI researchers tend to use their own definitions of intelligence - playing chess/go, having conversations about trivia that require no true emotional insight, "making" "art", writing code, driving.
What if those are all peripheral side effects and not at all necessary to human AGI?
The goalposts were moved by marketing hype about a decade ago, when people started claiming that the then-new systems were "AI". Before that, the goalposts were always far away, at what we now call AGI because the term AI has been cheapened in order to sell stuff.
No, AGI replaced AI for general intelligence before the current craze, AI was “cheapened” several AI hyoe cycles ago, for (among other things) rule-based expert systems. Which is why games have had “AI” long before the set of techniques at the center of the current AI hype cycle were developed.
Heh, that's funny. I've seen the term "AI" used in many games for a computer opponent, but somehow I've never connected that use with the general term.
AI never does this now...
We're probably one or two generational architecture changes from a system that can do it.