The GPT model alone does not offer autonomy. It only acts in response to explicit input. That's not to say that you couldn't built autonomy on top of GPT, though. In fact, that appears to be exactly what Pulse is trying to accomplish.

But Microsoft and OpenAI's contractual agreements state that the autonomy must also be economically useful to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in autonomously-created economic activity, so OpenAI will not call it as such until that time.

> The concept does not, in principle, require the system to be an autonomous agent; a static model—such as a highly capable large language model—or an embodied robot could both satisfy the definition so long as human‑level breadth and proficiency are achieved

Edit -

> That is ultimately what sets AGI apart from AI.

No! The key thing was that it was general intelligence rather than things like “bird classifier” or “chess bot”.

It says that one guy who came up with his own AGI classification system says it might not be required. And despite it being his own system, he still was only able to land on "might not", meaning that he doesn't even understand his own system. He can safely be ignored. Outliers are always implied, of course.

> No! The key thing was that it was general intelligence rather than things like “bird classifier” or “chess bot”.

I suppose if you don't consider the wide range of human intelligence as the marker of general intelligence then a "bird classifier" plus a "chess bot" gives you general intelligence. We had nearly a millennia ago!

But usually general intelligence expects human-like intelligence, which would necessitate autonomy — the most notable feature of human intelligence. Humans would not be able to exist without the intelligence to perform autonomously.

But, regardless, you make a good point: A "language classifier" can be no more AGI than a "bird classifier". These are narrow systems, focused on a single task. A "bird classifier" doesn't become a general intelligence when it crosses some threshold of being able to classify n number of birds just as a "language classifier" wouldn't become a general intelligence when it is able to classify n number of language features, no matter how large n becomes.

Conceivably these classifiers could be used as part of a larger system to achieve general intelligence, but on their own, impossible.

Every human every day has the choice to not go to work, has the choice not to follow the law, has a choice to... These AI doesn't have nearly as much autonomy as that.