Without providing even a basic definition of intelligence you can't proclaim "this is intelligence". You seem to have settled on "Artificial Intelligence" but than disunite that from "reasoning".
At this point I don't know if you are just ignoring part of the discussion or you are willingly passing over concepts you don't like/don't need for your train of thoughts.
You are right to say I didn't provide my own personal definition of intelligence, but this would kill every purpose. What if my definition of intelligence is merely "having brain cells"? I intentionally tried to use common literature on the matter.
As naive start, I linked a wikipedia page. I underlined that that is just a starting point, and not an exhaustive and complete assessment. People study these kind of things for years, and we cannot summarize or reduce it to a single comment here on HN.
> You seem to have settled on "Human Intelligence"
I literally linked an article with a dedicated artificial intelligence section... If you search, there is another page on wikipedia dedicated just to human intelligence.
> You are describing the agents applying hypotheses and reasoning.
Except I am not. I described what is the output that worked. Only because I used the verb "thought" it doesn't mean they actually thought. This is exactly why I say we shouldn't humanize AI. Don't get hung uo on the exact words I used, focus on what I meant. They didn't reason, they tried random things at very high speed until they hit a working solution. The fact that most of this trials are discarded before actually being implemented is not a working thought process.
It's exactly as the typing monkeys example, you just can't see all the wrong papers printed on the floor. The direction that seems to be reasoning is still probability built on statistics with extra steps.
All your "insight" has been trying to disprove what I wrote. You didn't provide your definition of intelligence either and just claimed AI is intelligent. At least I tried to give some reads, wrote by people who studied, and not my personal opinions.
Anyway, listen, I do not have to convince you my point of view is correct, and you do not have to convince me that your point of view is correct. Believe what you think it's true, honestly I don't care.
If you have some good reads to link, I will gladly read it, if you have to just keep saying AI is intelligent, I got your point messages ago, you didn't add any actual meaning to the conversation.