> This is an even bizarre idea. I get that those things are harder to implement in a robot since it requires extremely fine sensors and motor control. But that making it closer to intelligence? That does not make a lot of sense..

Why? It requires understanding a complex sense of self: where am I? How can I move? how do I fit within the environment? How can I change the environment?

Understanding, reasoning, self-awareness, and planning are all considered core aspects of intelligence, and those are all on display during navigation and locomotion.

I'd suggest those are all much closer to intelligence than the rules of chess. More complicated, too.

> Just because we cannot exactly define intelligence does not mean that you can call any arbitrary thing intelligent!

And just because intelligence appears alien in nature to you, doesn't mean it's not there... An ant only has ~250,000 neurons (far less than an LLM) are ants not intelligent? Not at all?

So if you define intelligence simply as "human", then sure - LLMs aren't that. But I also think that's an uninteresting and banal conclusion.

---

So my core point remains - define intelligent. I think it's surprisingly hard to do in a way that rules out LLMs, but doesn't also rule out large categories of things we do probably agree are intelligent.