Take the robots from Boston Dynamics as an example. We do not consider a human intelligent because they can distinguish a cat from a chair, or walk without tripping or do a backflip. But we would consider them intelligent if they were able to make creative use of their physical ability, based on the data they have, to solve a problem. But when we marvel at the "AI" in things like robots, my understanding is that the "AI" is mostly in the perception (going from raw sensor data to a labelled model of the world) and the actuation (going from an instruction as "move one meter forward" or "do a backflip" to an actual sequence of action of the actuators). But the actual "intelligence" (the decision to open the door in order to go fetch the peanut butter and bread in the other room, and bring it back to complete the task "make me a peanut butter sandwich") is mostly classic if-then logic, or given by a human operator.
I see a similar pattern with things like ChatGPT: one might be impressed by the capacity of some students to learn textbooks by heart and parrot them perfectly, but those are not the students we call "intelligent". An intelligent student is one who might have forgotten the proof of a theorem or the exact definition of some term, but is able to creatively come to a correct and creative solution when presented a new problem (to which "parrot students" tend to fail miserably).