I'm not sure how this relates to AGI.

This measures the ability of a LLM to succeed in a certain class of games. Sure, that could be a valuable metric on how powerful (or even generally powerful) a LLM is.

Humans may or may not be good at the same class of games.

We know there exists a class of games (including most human games like checkers/chess/go) that computers (not LLMs!) already vastly outpace humans.

So the argument for whether a LLM is "AGI" or not should not be whether a LLM does well on any given class of games, but whether that class of games is representative of "AGI" (however you define that.)

Seems unlikely that this set of games is a definition meaningful for any practical, philosophical or business application?

This is bad in tech. But at least we are (relatively) well equipped to deal with it.

My partner teaches at a small college. These people are absolutely lost, with administration totally sold on the idea that "AI is the future" while lacking any kind of coherent theory about how to apply it to pedagogy.

Administrators are typically uncritically buying into the hype, professors are a mix of compliant and (understandably) completely belligerent to the idea.

Students are being told conflicting information -- in one class that "ChatGPT is cheating" and in the very next class that using AI is mandatory for a good grade.

Its an absolute disaster.