[math_dandy]

I was hoping the accepted definition would not use humans as a baseline, rather that humans would be an (the) example of AGI.

[thomasahle]

The argument of (1) doesn't really have anything to do with humans or antromorphising. We're not even discussing AGI, we're just talking about the property of "thinking".

If somebody claims "computers can't do X, hence they can't think". A valid counter argument is "humans can't do X either, but they can think."

It's not important for the rebuttal that we used humans. Just that there exists entities that don't have property X, but are able to think. This shows X is not required for our definition of "thinking".

[bastawhiz]

The A in AGI is "artificial" which sort of precludes humans from being AGI (unless you have a very unconventional belief about the origin of humans).

Since there's not really a whole lot of unique examples of general intelligence out there, humans become a pretty straightforward way to compare.

[xeonmc]

> unless you have a very unconventional belief about the origin of humans

No so unconventional in many cultures.