Why is doing 95% of human jobs not the same as AGI?

Question

Accepted Answer

_Automating most work would be hugely valuable, but value is not the same as general intelligence._

> When Sam Altman says his definition of AGI is an AI that can do 95% of human jobs, that's really not it. If you could make a system to do 95% of human jobs but it does it just by copying a huge amount of training data that contains a million examples of each job, that may be incredibly valuable and have immense humanitarian value, but it's not making big leaps of generalization beyond its training data, so it's not an AGI.

Source: [Rethinking the AGI Race, with Benjamin Goertzel (eCornell Keynote)](https://ecornell.cornell.edu/keynotes/view/K052826/)

Q&A, generalization

Why is doing 95% of human jobs not the same as AGI?