There's arguably a legitimate sense of AGI in which Chat GPT 3.5 is an "AGI".

There might well be a sense of AGI in which humans aren't AGI.

Does AGI require robotics? Does AGI require real-time agency? Does AGI require Vision? Hearing? Touch? Smell? Taste? Does AGI require sentience? Does this unit have a soul? Why are people giving definitions of AGI on which Helen Keller wasn't an AGI?

People are propounding definitions of AGI which the smartest humans alive couldn't meet because they require, e.g., graduate student-level skills in every single domain. People are propounding definitions of AGI on which it already exists- e.g. some level of generalised problem solving ability. Falling back on the public consensus at least adds some specificity, but the public can and will engage in goalpost shifting.

There will not be a magic lightbulb that goes on when "AGI" is achieved. It is not a substantial and exact difference. To the extent it used to have a precise definition- generalised capabilities rather than narrow capabilities- it arguably exists now. Please, give a definition if you're going to make a market about AGI. To be clear, I have no problem with vibes based resolution, and I have no problem with "this market resolves according to my opinion". What I have a problem with is the assumption that we all have some common understanding of a concrete and specific thing called "AGI".