There´s quite a lot of talk about Artificial Intelligence without really taking the time to define the two terms.

´Artificial´seems quite straightforward, a general definition could be it is the opposite of ´natural´ with ´natural´ defined as ´existing in nature; not made or caused by humankind´. (Chat)GPT, Stable-Diffusion and the like fits this bill. So does a ´simple´ spell-checker.

´Intelligence´is a bit more challenging. One could define it as ´the ability to acquire and apply knowledge´.
On first glance (Chat)GPT and such fit the bill, they learn and apply what they learned. A rule-based system does not fit the bill however: it does not learn, only applies the rules it is given.

But let´s look a bit deeper... What is knowledge?
A bunch of statistics is data, information at best. It is not knowledge, which is commonly defined as ´a theoretical and practical understanding of a subject.

For me this implies ´applying knowledge´ is not only about eg creating a sentences in response to a given prompt based on probable word sequences.
It is also about being able to test if the produced result is correct, makes sense, is practical, ...

I don´t think the current systems are at that level. There are many examples that evidence they are not.
Hence I find it hard to call these systems intelligent.

(Granted, people sometimes also do not move beyond producing a probable sequence of words, this reply may be an example of that 🤗)