This sent me down a small rabbit hole. As it turns out, agi was “coined” by like 20 unique projects and people over the last 70 years according to poorly sourced news articles on dozens of sites. Some of them seemed almost reputable. Looking at you, Forbes and medium.

Why even throw that in there? They must not offer their writers anywhere near enough time to properly research anything, and that really casts a shadow over them, in my eyes.

Nah, that term is more scientific and at least 25 years old. At the time nobody would have cared about the order, but now (in the last few years) people would probably care, because of confusion with GenAI.