> with enough layers some form of complexity can emerge, and at some level that complexity becomes intelligence.

It isn’t a given that complexity begets intelligence.

and it isn't a given that it doesn't, so maybe a little openness towards the possibility is warranted?

I’m open, but the comment I responded to asserted: “complexity becomes intelligence”, as if it is a fact. And it isn’t proven.

We have LLMs, which are obviously intelligent. How is it not proven?

There is no "obvious" about it, unless you define "intelligent" in a rather narrow (albeit Turing-esque) way.

The suspicion is that they are good at predicting next-token and not much else. This is still a research topic at this point, from my reading.

	▲	DiogenesKynikos 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You can't predict the next token in an arbitrary text unless you are highly intelligent and have a vast body of knowledge. They're obviously intelligent in the way that we judge intelligence in humans: we pay attention to what they say. You ask them a question about an arbitrary subject, and they respond in the same way that an intelligent person would. If you don't consider that intelligence, then you have a fundamentally magical, unscientific view of what intelligence is.

But in the case of both biological and computer neurons, it is an empirical fact that complexity has led to intelligence.