but that's exactly the point. Is that intelligent?

We also see robots excel at chess and go, is that not intelligent? Why not? Given that's the mental opposite of the physical examples you're happy to discard (side note: I've done real world robotics development, I'd call walking/catching/throwing considerably more difficult activities than chess/go, and much closer to intelligence).

We see LLMs absolutely blow through the turing test, and that was literally the philosophical "gold standard" for machines that exhibit human-like intelligence for like 70 years.

So I really don't think I'm "getting it all very wrong" - I think this is a fundamental question that you're basically failing to honestly engage with because you've already made up your mind.

So again - define intelligence?

>Is that intelligent?

huh? In the comment above you said you would argue that it is. So is that not your argument?

>I'd call walking/catching/throwing considerably more difficult activities than chess/go, and much closer to intelligence

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..

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