A traditional static program could ace the bar exam, or even a well-prepared stack of flash cards. We wouldn't say the flash cards are exhibiting intelligence though, only their creators.
> The whole discussion is about intelligence. I was replying to OP.
OP was replying to Scientific American's article making numerous unfounded claims of "intelligence." So the party you should be asking for a definition is Scientific American.
> MY definition of intelligence is degree of ability to apply prior experience to correctly predict future outcomes
And what constitutes a "prediction" exactly? If someone fails to catch a baseball, would you say it's still possible they correctly predicted how to catch it? Because, if not, that would mean control over a body is integral to intelligence. If yes, then any object could be claimed intelligent but lacking in bodily function. If something predicts the future without applying prior experience, does that make it more intelligent or less intelligent?
> you seem to want to side with OP and say that GPT-4 isn't intelligent - so it's YOUR definition of intelligence that would be needed support your position.
You're trying to put words in my mouth, but I will play along. I'll say intelligence is the ability to autonomously create increasingly complete and consistent axiomatic systems. Since GPT-4 is digital, operating according to decisions (axioms) determined solely by external programmers and external data with little to no concern for consistency, I would say it's not intelligent. However, if a similar schema were applied to some sort of analog computer that had the ability to fluctuate or disobey its instructions then there would be more room for debate.