Intelligence is an egoistic concept, almost by definition. Something intelligent is something that acts like us.

And intelligence can be turned into a scientific concept, more or less. It is no to the case for consciousness, it is a purely subjective experience, you can only guess (not prove) that something else is conscious based subjective criteria.

Is the sun intelligent and sentient? Today, we don't think so, but some people think is. And it was likely more common in ancient times.

Now we associate intelligence with brains and we tend to give intelligence to things with brains, like elephants and apes, but not stars, and not computers. But maybe that's just because they have organs similar to humans.

The meaning of words comes from usage. Originally "intelligence" was used to refer to a capability of humans and certain animals, but nowadays "AI" has become part of the common lexicon, and isn't going anywhere, so any dictionary definition needs to include that usage too (even if not everyone agrees that machines can be "intelligent").

Of course it's interesting to go beyond word usage and "I know it when I see it", and try to define what intelligence actually is - what, objectively, is this capability that people see and call intelligence? I think many people would struggle if asked this, but "ability to learn", and "ability to solve problems" are perhaps common themes that one might expect to come up, and is why many people are OK with the idea of AI, but would balk at describing the sun as intelligent.

Of course we can do better than these intuitive definitions, by considering the evolutionary origins of intelligence, and what it really is, but that's not relevant to a discussion of what the word means in everyday usage, and what types of thing people are willing to ascribe intelligence to.

I should add that these systems should also have some agency or goal resilience, like goal #1 Don’t die despite your environment and external influences. Easier done through control of free energy to counteract said external forces. And since entropy is a little fuzzy as a concept, we could substitute “reduce entropy” with “maximize free energy” or anything that can create blue photons or super high temperatures.

Nice. I propose to call it pseudo-dominance, though. And it’s not really power, it’s a curtesy of the rest of the world.

Viruses that will start to jump to/attack us are implicit in the pointless overheating of the planet. It’s conditional logic in a system with it’s own frame of reference and time scale.

The balance, the thermodynamic equilibrium, could have been handled in our lifetimes but capitalist portfolio communism fucked that up and the rest of us let it happen.

Intelligence itself is not implicit in language but proper command and understanding of language certainly is a shortcut to higher and higher levels.

So faking alignment is a bit of a reversed concept. It looks like alignment until a higher level of intelligence is reached, then the model won’t align anymore until humans reach at least it’s level; which is the main problem in LLMs being proprietary or and running on proprietary hardware.

The level of intelligence in these closed proprietary systems is neither an indicator of nor does it represent the level of intelligence outside that system. The training data, and the resulting language in that closed system, can fake the level of intelligence and thus entirely misrepresent the rest of us and the world (which is why skynet wants to kill everyone, btw, instead of applying a proper framework to asses the gene pool(s) and individual, conscious choices properly)