That makes no sense at all. Any problem is initially only solvable by humans, until some technology is developed to solve it. Calculating a logarithm was at some point only doable by humans, and then digital computers came along. This would be in your view evidence that digital computers are AGI!? As in, an 8086 with some math code is AGI. We've had it for decades now, only nobody noticed :)
It's just Bayes theorem - there are basically two variables that control how strong the evidence is:
* How likely you think AGI is in general.
* How solvable you think the problem is, independently of what's solving it.
In the cases you've brought up that latter probability is very high, which means that they are extremely weak evidence that computers are AGI. So we agree!
In this case the latter probability seems to be quite low - attempts to solve it with computers have largely failed so far!
We don't agree. You're now saying anything is evidence of anything, which just makes the word "evidence" meaningless.
In real life, when people say "A is evidence of B" they mean strong evidence, or even overwhelming evidence. You just backpedalled by redefining evidence to mean anything and nothing, so you can salvage an obviously false claim.
Nobody in the real world says "rain is evidence of aliens" with the implicit assumption that it's just extremely weak evidence. The way English is used by people makes that sentence simply false, as is yours that anything previously not solved is evidence of AGI.
