In some tasks, AI is unreliable. In others, it is superhuman. You could, of course, say the same thing about calculators, but it is also clear that AI is different. It is already demonstrating general capabilities and performing a wide range of intellectual tasks, including those that it is not specifically trained on. Does that mean that o3 and Gemini 2.5 are AGI? Given the definitional problems, I really don’t know, but I do think they can be credibly seen as a form of “Jagged AGI” - superhuman in enough areas to result in real changes to how we work and live, but also unreliable enough that human expertise is often needed to figure out where AI works and where it doesn’t.
— Ethan Mollick, On Jagged AGI
Recent articles
- I think "agent" may finally have a widely enough agreed upon definition to be useful jargon now - 18th September 2025
- My review of Claude's new Code Interpreter, released under a very confusing name - 9th September 2025
- Recreating the Apollo AI adoption rate chart with GPT-5, Python and Pyodide - 9th September 2025