It matters because, we're still sorting out what intelligence means for an AI agent. As you pointed out, language evolves over time. The question remains whether or not attributing intelligence to the current iteration of models is correct. This is not settled and I don't see why it's wrong to bring it up.
One thing is clear: LLMs at least already are capable of 1) not making the same mistake that person made, and 2) clearly seeing why the other person's post was "wrong" in both reasoning and tone.
Being good in chess was (and still is) associated with being intelligent. But if a computer does it, it is just a calculator (and it is).
Then go, the great game for intelligence, too complex for calculators to have a chance against intelligent humans. Until it was solved.
And then text, the original Turing test solved, AI capable enough to fool humans. And now already replacing humans in jobs strongly associated with intelligence - programming.
I find it hard to debate, that we don't have created artificial intelligence, by the way we used to use the word "intelligence" before.
So if AI is really understanding something?
Likely not in the way we use that term. But it definitely shows intelligent behavior and actions.
Hey, look I can make unsupported claims with just as much evidence as you!
Maybe you'd like to add some details as to why AlphaGo and its successors haven't "solved" Go (insofar as a game like Go can ever be "solved")?
Other people know there is no solving go with calculating, but using statistics to achieve the goal of becoming better at humans. And they are. (With a recent unexpected exception unlikely to be repeated more often)
But this was the original statement - so solved references "chance against intelligent humans". And this is clearly solved. No comment on that there cannot be better go engines, but no matter how painful it is, they beat the best humans. (And it was painful, they did cry)
Or I guess to put it another way, if we want to coin a new term for the intelligence-esque thing that AI has, but the key differentiator is that it's an AI thing and not a human thing, then what linguistic value does the new word have? If I said "Claude is intelligent" then the fact that we're talking about AI "intelligence" is already captured in the sentence anyway; no new word needed
We're all well aware that we have different thresholds for what we consider intelligence, and that these thresholds are constantly changing.
Even if we agree that "LLMs are AI!!!" or "LLMs are not AI!!!" in this thread, all we've established is that this particular set of commentors share a similar enough definition at this point in time.