"Not being able to quickly reference the sum corpus of human knowledge across all fields, or contextually learn new languages in moments, or grasp the overarching architecture and modules of a million+ line codebase is not intelligence."
This would be a pretty ridiculous statement don't you think?
You are operating on a narrow, human-centric view of intelligence here for some reason... while I bet you would say an Orca is intelligent. So what drives you to place an LLM so low on the intelligence totem pole? This is clearly bias.
The fact that it is programmed is irrelevant. The fact that at it's core it is an ingestion of human data and an output of a prediction of more data doesn't declassify LLM's as intelligent. Unless you are willing to put that same lens against how humans learn. (you aren't)
Not that these distinctions are meaningful in any way, by the way, in light of raw functionalism. I am just annoyed by the clear bias.