As per later era Wittgenstein, I prefer to ignore these engagements and focus more on the meaning-as-use approach.
What is the use of intelligence? What are the concrete outcomes of intelligence?
Ray Kurzweil argues sentience is a philosophical question, and doesn't have much value as applied to science and technology. What will change the world is how this intelligence is applied. No one's going to care whether AGI is defined as sentient when it creates cheap fusion energy.
No one's going to care after being converted into paperclips, either.
You’re not offering a rebuttal, just making another metaphysical claim about “intelligence.”
You don’t even attempt to explain what practical distinction your use of the word is supposed to capture.
— Bertrand Russell.
I'm not calling you to action, I'm explaining why I don't feel inclined to engage in philosophy and discuss "the concrete outcomes of intelligence" given a more pressing, pragmatic need.
It feel it's self-evident that we must fight the good fight of dissuading as many people as possible of the notion that LLMs as we have today, and likely forever after, are actually intelligent. Delaying this fight allows the current, stupid belief to the contrary to fester.
I don't think we'll win the majority of people over by debating the nuanced meaning of the word intelligence to a very precise degree.
I think we ought to do it by shaming them every time LLMs fail.
The really interesting question is still a few years away when we ask if we humans have the right to turn these things on and off? ;)