When you ask an AI "do you like what I am wearing?", knowing what an AI is, the only logical explanation for me would be that you, in fact, want to know the average opinion of other people about your dress, since that is the only answer an AI can give. Which is a perfectly good question in and of itself that we also ask other people. In that case, a good quality answer would entail a past history of communication with many other human beings about their tastes in clothing, producing the ability to accurately guesstimate if other people will like what you wear. But this is exactly the realm in which this kind of AI can surpass human beings simply because it can "talk" to many more people from many more locations across time, thus producing a better answer for you. Is this ability to collect and process information about other people not a type of intelligence? There are many other types, yes, but it is possible to construct a system that consists of more than one type of neural network that can relay data among themselves.
Is there any reason to think intelligence is substantially more than statistics?
If I ask, "What do you think about what i'm wearing?" and you say "it's nice" *because* you have seen it, compared it to your tastes, etc. and believe it to be nice -- then you've answered the question i've asked.
A lookup table cannot answer this question: it can only answer it "in quotes". Ie, really it answers: "given what everyone has said about this before, what is the on-average answer?"
You realise that we're not trying to answer questions right? That our interest in intelligence isnt having some useful output on occasion of some prepared input?
We're interested in intelligent agents being in the world with us. It as important they get answers wrong. We are interested in systems which act for the right reasons (ethical, intellectual, cognitive, athletic, emotional, etc.).
Perhaps the most important things animals do is act well when the answers arent right.