My argument is that the underlying processes don’t matter as long as results are classified as output of an intelligence - because that’s the only way I can judge it. What it is under the hood is… less important.

Oh btw you must’ve missed the post in which it was told it was a Linux shell and it mostly worked as one. Complete with recursively calling into a pretend API version of itself. I’m not calling that intelligence, but I’m not calling it regurgitation either.

> My argument is that the underlying processes don’t matter as long as results are classified as output of an intelligence - because that’s the only way I can judge it. What it is under the hood is… less important.

That view is called "behaviorism" and is not really taken particularly seriously exactly because it's not very useful in truly understanding what is happening under the hood (which, as a curious species, we deem important). It's like not caring how electromagnetism works because the behavior of "the positive side of this chunk of rock is attracted to the negative side" is good enough.

We plainly don't know anywhere near enough about what's happening under the hood in our own heads to judge based on that, so in practice, "does it behave intelligent?" is the best test that we actually have available.

> you're making the same mistake: looking at behavior and affirming the consequent (namely: it outputs smart-looking text, therefore it must be intelligent)

Why is that a mistake? What other means do we have of assessing intelligence?