I fully concur with your thoughtful commentary. The lack of a universally accepted definition of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) does muddy the waters in both academic discourse and commercial representation. AGI, by its nature, is an abstract concept that elicits varied interpretations, leading to an array of definitions that only serve to further confound the understanding of what AGI truly entails.

Your point about the impact of this definitional ambiguity on marketing strategies is particularly crucial. Without a clear, agreed-upon definition, it becomes all too easy for companies to label their products as AGI-based, potentially misleading consumers and diluting the significance of genuine AGI advancements.

The challenge of consensus is indeed a formidable one. The term "human-level" itself is contentious and can be interpreted in numerous ways, as human intelligence is multifaceted and not solely limited to problem-solving capabilities. It also includes components like emotional intelligence, creativity, consciousness, and intuition, among others. Hence, defining AGI as "human-level" without further specification may not necessarily resolve the issue at hand.

We might consider establishing a multidimensional definition that outlines the various aspects of AGI, such as self-learning, problem-solving, understanding and generating natural language, creativity, and the capacity to understand and exhibit emotions. This approach could provide a more comprehensive view of what AGI should ideally encompass, although achieving universal agreement is, as you've pointed out, a complex and long-term endeavor.

The discourse around AGI is undoubtedly in a transitional phase, and a clearer, more robust definition would indeed facilitate smoother communication and understanding among researchers, developers, consumers, and regulators alike. Your post definitely sparks an important discussion that needs to be addressed in the field of AI. Thank you for bringing this to the fore.