Forget chatbots: CLI agents are AGI?
" it is why I also believe that opus 4.5 in claude code is basically AGI. "
note: it’s $20/month to start with at Claude.ai
Dean Ball, who contributed the most to the AI Action Plan:
Not many probably know about this: but Anthropic (behind Opus 4.5) is the third largest private company in the world, valued at $350 B.
1 Like
This is an interesting but surprising topic to bring up on this forum?
The latest command line agents are impressive wrt:
- Chain tools (shell, Python, web, APIs)
- Execute long multi-step tasks
- Reason over codebases
- Simulate planning and debugging
- Appear autonomous over short horizons
However, there are a few generally accepted requirements for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). This usually implies a system that can do all of these things:
- Generalise across domains without task-specific training
- Learn new skills autonomously over time
- Form goals and plans and adapt them
- Transfer domain knowledge flexibly (eg physics → econometrics → coding)
- Self-correct and improve without human feedback loops
The latest CL feels AGI-like because it blurs the line between model and worker, externalises memory and tools and operates in open-ended environments (OS, cloud, repositories). But this is scaffolding, not AGI.
What we have now reached is prototype AGI infrastructure, powered by narrow intelligence.
Before we progress to real AGI, I hope we have considered; prioritised alignment, built in control, and an insurance that it is not controlled by one company, one government or one ideology. Rather AGI requires governance that is distributed, auditable, and pluralistic. AKA Does no harm!
We are close to AGI but we are not yet there. If there’s a failure mode ahead, it won’t be because we didn’t see it coming, it’ll be because we optimised for speed, profit, or prestige instead of restraint. And history suggests that’s a real risk.
1 Like