Happily, I don't need to define "intelligence" here, because it's squarely in "I know it when I see it" territory. It's notoriously hard to define.

I also don't ascribe intelligence to a pocket calculator.

I don't find it's particularly hard to define loosely, but then I don't think of it as a special property of humans other than it tends to be quite high in them. But we are obviously talking about different things and if you're not going to provide a definition then it's not really the basis for a productive conversation.

To address this similarly to my sibling reply, I don't have a definition of intelligence that provides value here.

And your loose definition isn't doing a lot of help either, beyond perhaps noting: that Google search bar _is_ similarly "intelligent" to an LLM? Which says what, a lot about search? A lot about modern LLMs?

Similar in kind, but not degree. An LLM is a lot more intelligent than the google search bar.

Do you ascribe intelligence to a gorilla? How about a goldfish?

Would you ask either of them to review a PR? Or a calculator to eat a banana? Or an LLM to calculate prime factors?

These aren't interesting questions. As much as any definition is in use here, we're not going to get much value talking about "intelligence" this way.