> Or it could be, a system capable of reasoning its way to doing X would be intelligent, but you can also teach to the test, so to speak, and build a system that does X without being generalizable and thus satisfy X without being intelligent.

Which is exactly what we do with many kids today; makes you wonder how many times we might invent AI and not know it because we don't raise it correctly so it appears too dumb to be considered a success.

That's sort of where a lot of people have arrived, to be sure, with distinguishing the notion of an "artificial general intelligence" from other things in the AI bucket.