I'm using the dictionary definition of "general":

> General: 1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.

To me, a general intelligence is one that is not just specific: it's affecting or concerning all or most areas of intelligence.

A calculator is a very specific, very inflexible, type of intelligence, so it's not, by definition, general. And, I'm not talking about the indirect applications of a calculator or a specific intelligence.

If you want to argue that we don't need the concept of AGI, because something like specific experts could be enough to drastically change the economy, then sure! That would be true. But I think that's a slightly different, complimentary, conversation. Even then, say we have all these experts, then a system to intelligently dispatch problems to them...maybe that's a specific implementation of AGI that would work. I think how less dependent on human intelligence the economy becomes, and how more dependent on non-human decision makers it becomes, is a reasonable measure. This seems controversial, which I can't really understand. I'm in hardware engineering, so maybe I have a different perspective, but goals based on outcome are the only ones that actually matter, especially if nobody has done it before.