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
- First impressions of Claude Cowork, Anthropic's general agent - 12th January 2026
- My answers to the questions I posed about porting open source code with LLMs - 11th January 2026
- Fly's new Sprites.dev addresses both developer sandboxes and API sandboxes at the same time - 9th January 2026