Quick answer
AGI stands for artificial general intelligence. OpenAI's Charter defines it as "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work"; a research paper proposes levels, Anthropic's CEO calls the term imprecise, and Microsoft uses it in a business agreement. This site's view: judge a tool by what it does on your task.
Key takeaways
- AGI stands for artificial general intelligence. Of the 4 documents read here, two define the term (OpenAI's Charter and a research paper's proposed levels) and two show how it is used (Anthropic's CEO in a personal essay and a Microsoft post about a business agreement).
- Each entry is a sentence from one named document, with its kind and, where the page shows one, its date. None is a standard, and this page does not say which is right.
- This page does not say whether any product is AGI, or when or whether it will exist.
- This site's view: judge a tool by what it does on your task today, so ask what it does, on which task, and how that was measured.
What is AGI?
In the 4 documents read here, AGI (artificial general intelligence) is used differently; OpenAI's Charter defines it as "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work."
What each document does with the word: OpenAI's Charter states it as what its mission is aimed at; the paper proposes levels and, as of 2023, placed that year's chat models at its first AGI level; Anthropic's CEO calls the term imprecise; Microsoft's post uses it as a term in a business agreement. This site's view: judge a tool by what it does on your task today.
This page reports what each document says and does not pick one. It also does not say whether any product is AGI, or whether or when anything will be.
Drafted with Claude, which is made by Anthropic. Anthropic is one of the organisations quoted below, through the essay of its CEO, alongside OpenAI, a research paper and Microsoft, each in its own words. Method: every quotation was copied from the page named in the sources and read on October 7, 2026.
How do OpenAI, a research paper, Anthropic's CEO and Microsoft use the term AGI?
Two of the documents define the term (OpenAI's Charter and the paper's proposed levels); two show how it is used (one CEO's essay and a commercial agreement). The table lists the quote, the date, the kind of document and what the wording turns on. The last column is this site's reading, not the authors'.
| Who | What the document says | Year and kind of document | What it turns on (this site's reading) |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI | "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work" | Page shows no date. The company's charter, which opens with its mission statement | Economic value of work |
| Morris et al. (research paper) | Proposes "levels of AGI performance, generality, and autonomy" | 2023 (submitted 4 Nov 2023; latest version 24 Sep 2025). A research paper on arXiv, a proposal by its authors, who list Google DeepMind | Depth of performance and breadth of generality, as a scale |
| Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic | "I find AGI to be an imprecise term that has gathered a lot of sci-fi baggage and hype." | 2024 (October). A personal essay by the CEO, not a company document | He calls the term imprecise and says he prefers "powerful AI" |
| Microsoft | "Once AGI is declared by OpenAI, that declaration will now be verified by an independent expert panel." | 2025 (October 28). A company blog post about a business agreement | How a declaration is verified in a business agreement |
This table covers four sources only. The pages of Google, Meta and other developers were not read for this page, so the table says nothing about their wording.
What does each document say?
OpenAI states a definition, the paper proposes levels, Anthropic's CEO comments on the word, and Microsoft's post uses it in a deal without defining it. One short paragraph each, in the same order as the table.
OpenAI's Charter states: "OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work—benefits all of humanity." The definition sits inside the sentence that states the mission. The same page says: "The timeline to AGI remains uncertain." This page adds no timeline of its own.
The research paper, by Morris et al. (whose authors list Google DeepMind), says in its abstract: "we analyze existing definitions of AGI." It then proposes a framework "based on depth (performance) and breadth (generality) of capabilities," and says it reflects "on how current systems fit into this ontology." This is the authors' proposal, not an accepted standard. It offers a way to place systems on a scale rather than a single yes-or-no line.
Dario Amodei, Anthropic's CEO, writes in a footnote to his personal essay "Machines of Loving Grace" (October 2024): "I find AGI to be an imprecise term that has gathered a lot of sci-fi baggage and hype." The footnote goes on to say which phrases he prefers instead. This is one person's usage in an essay, not Anthropic's definition or policy.
Microsoft's post is a company blog post about a commercial agreement, and on the page read it gives no definition of AGI. It says Microsoft "continues to have exclusive IP rights and Azure API exclusivity until Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)." As the post describes it, that term runs until AGI is declared by OpenAI and verified by a panel.
Why do the documents not match?
They answer different questions. In this site's reading of the table, OpenAI's wording asks what share of valuable work an AI does compared with people, the paper asks how good and how broad it is, Amodei's footnote calls the word imprecise, and Microsoft's post says who declares it and who verifies the declaration. A seller who says "AGI" has not told you which of those they mean.
None of these documents is a standard, and this page found no single test that all of them accept. That is the practical meaning of "no agreed definition."
What should you do when a seller says "AGI"?
This site's view: set the word aside and ask what the product does today. Because the documents read here use the term for different things, the word cannot be checked against your job. Your own task can.
- Ask which definition they mean, and where it is written down. Then ask what it is compared with: pay, speed, accuracy or breadth.
- Ask what the product does today, on which task. A specific task, such as answering missed calls or drafting quotes, is something you can try.
- Ask how it was measured. Ask who ran the test, on what examples and when. A demo is not a measurement.
- If the word appears in a contract or terms, ask for its definition in writing. In the Microsoft agreement as the post describes it, some terms run until AGI is declared and verified, so ask how the contract defines the word.
For ready-made jobs and what they cost, see AI agents for small businesses; for a step-by-step start, see AI automation for small business. This advice rests only on the fact that the documents differ. It is not a prediction, and it is not a warning about any product.
FAQ
Is ChatGPT AGI?
OpenAI's Charter does not say whether ChatGPT meets its wording, and the paper's table (2023) lists ChatGPT together with Bard, Llama 2 and Gemini at its Level 1, "Emerging AGI". The table row prints "Emerging AGI ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2023), Bard (Anil et al., 2023), Llama 2 (Touvron et al., 2023), Gemini (Pichai & Hassabis, 2023)", and the same table gives performance "equal to or somewhat better than an unskilled human" for Level 1, "Emerging". The authors are at Google DeepMind, and Gemini, their own company's model, is in the same row. The paper also describes a mixed profile: frontier language models "exhibit “Competent” performance levels for some tasks (e.g., short essay writing, simple coding), but are still at “Emerging” performance levels for most tasks". Its conclusion reads: "Overall, current frontier language models would therefore be considered a Level 1 General AI (“Emerging AGI”) until the performance level increases for a broader set of tasks (at which point the Level 2 General AI, “Competent AGI,” criteria would be met)." That is the authors' proposal about models of 2023, not an accepted standard, and this page gives no verdict on any product.
Who decides whether AGI has been reached?
In the one arrangement quoted here, as Microsoft's post of October 28, 2025 describes it, once OpenAI declares AGI, "that declaration will now be verified by an independent expert panel." The post also says some terms run until AGI is declared and verified: Microsoft has "exclusive IP rights and Azure API exclusivity until Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)", and its IP rights "are extended through 2032 and now include models post-AGI". This page did not read the agreement itself. The research paper presents its levels as a proposal by its authors, and none of the 4 documents read here sets a test for everyone.
Is AGI the same as the AI tools I can buy today?
This page does not say. It reports that the research paper proposes levels of AGI "performance, generality, and autonomy" and reflects on how current systems fit them, so the paper frames the question as placing systems on a scale. Check a seller's claim against what the tool does on your task.
Does my business need to care about AGI?
This site's view is that you can decide purchases without it. A tool's price, features and results on your own task are checkable today; whether it fits a definition of AGI depends on which definition a seller picks.