![\"AI](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1776814707_188_0x0.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The Anthropic AI logo <\/p>\n
NurPhoto via Getty Images<\/p>\n
One half of the Amodei duo is making headlines this week talking about progress toward AGI \u2013 and it\u2019s not the member that most frequently receives attention in tech headlines.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s Daniela Amodei, the sister, who is now suggesting that we may already have artificial general intelligence working among us.<\/p>\n
\u201cAGI is such a funny term because many years ago it was kind of a useful concept to say: when will artificial intelligence be as capable as a human,\u201d Amodei reportedly said in an interview during the early days of 2026. \u201cAnd what\u2019s interesting is, by some definitions of that, we\u2019ve already surpassed that.\u201d<\/p>\n
That in turn has led large numbers of interested people to do a double-take. What? Already?<\/p>\n
In general, tech companies are throwing these terms around like confetti. The Singularity has famously been mentioned a lot already this year, including by none other than Elon Musk himself, and the agentic approach is rewriting how we think of work, with actual AI agents playing lots of roles in the average organization.<\/p>\n
But AGI?<\/p>\n
Amodei\u2019s Background<\/p>\n
Daniela Amodei, who started Anthropic with her brother Dario just a few years back, has experience studying the nature of the technology, first at Stripe, and then on various AI safety teams within the human-centered business that she heads. It\u2019s interesting to note that the two chose the word \u201canthropic\u201d to name their business: human-centered, and interested in the welfare of the human race.<\/p>\n
And Daniela and Dario both are well-known for explaining some of the vagaries of the term AGI, noting, as in this Medium article, that as people, we tend to move the goalposts. Tasmia Sharmin, writing Jan. 6,<\/a> articulates this well:<\/p>\n \u201cEvery time AI achieves something we thought required human-level intelligence, we decide that thing doesn\u2019t actually count,\u201d Sharmin notes. \u201cChess? Turns out that\u2019s just brute-force calculation, not real intelligence. Go? Pattern matching, not true reasoning. Writing essays? Autocomplete on steroids. Coding? Well, it can\u2019t do EVERYTHING humans can do, so clearly not AGI. \u2026 The definition of AGI has become \u2018whatever AI can\u2019t do yet.\u2019 The moment AI achieves it, we retroactively decide it doesn\u2019t count as general intelligence.\u201d<\/p>\n That being the case, and taking into account the extremely rapid advancement of these LLMs, how do we work with AI and not against it, or, perhaps more accurately, against ourselves?<\/p>\n