Jensen Huang again claims that Nvidia has achieved AGI while also calling the term meaningless
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said on an earnings call that the company had achieved AGI for many tasks, but immediately afterward described the term as meaningless without a clear definition. He repeated a similar claim from March. OpenAI, Anthropic and other companies use their own, mutually inconsistent definitions.
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said on an earnings call on Wednesday 26 August 2026 that the company had already achieved AGI (artificial general intelligence) “for many tasks”. Almost immediately, however, he downplayed the claim himself, saying that such milestones are currently “meaningless”. He did not provide a precise definition or a benchmark by which AGI had been achieved. According to Huang, what matters is that AI “does productive and useful work” and “generates profitable tokens” — the more computing power, the more tokens and profit.
This is not the first such statement: in March 2026, Huang said on the Lex Fridman podcast that he believed AGI had been achieved, without defining the term more precisely. Fridman proposed his own definition at the time — an AI system capable of actually doing the work of a human, meaning founding, growing and running a technology company worth over a billion dollars. Huang partially qualified his statement by saying that the chance of 100 000 such agents being able to build a company comparable to Nvidia was zero.
According to the article, leading companies in the field differ significantly in their understanding of what AGI means. OpenAI defines AGI in its charter as “highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work”; OpenAI head of research Mark Chen estimated in a recent interview with Time that the company is “80 % of the way” to AGI. According to OpenAI, there is also another, financially defined threshold agreed with Microsoft — systems capable of generating at least 100 billion dollars in profit. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei described AGI as an “imprecise” or even “marketing” term and prefers the term “powerful AI”. Other companies use their own alternative terms — Meta speaks of “personal superintelligence”, Microsoft of “humanist superintelligence”, Amazon of “useful general intelligence”, while Demis Hassabis from Google DeepMind speaks of reaching the “foothills of the singularity”.
Why it matters
Repeated claims about “achieving AGI” without a clear definition show that the term is used in the industry more as a marketing and motivational tool than as a measurable technical milestone. For readers and companies, this means that similar statements by leaders (Nvidia, OpenAI and others) cannot be taken as evidence of a specific technical capability without verifying which test or benchmark they are based on.
Two audiences, two different impacts
What this means
For individuals
People following AI developments should approach statements such as “we have achieved AGI” critically, because even the creators themselves do not agree on a definition of the term, and it often serves as a marketing tool.
For a business
Companies buying AI products or compute should not use claims by providers about “achieving AGI” as a basis for decision-making — even the providers themselves (Nvidia, OpenAI) cannot agree on a definition or a measurable threshold for the term.
Sales and marketingCheck the original
Event sources
only one source so far · 1 publisher, 1 independent. We count feeds from the same owner only once.