Who said anything about matching human intelligence though? If that's the reference point, then nothing in the field of AI has ever had the 'right' to be called that. Computer vision, ML-based optimization of anything or ranking/recommendation systems are all considered to be within AI, despite none of them being remotely similar to 'human intelligence'.
This is the main point of my post - I feel like people retroactively try to see AI as being some kind of an endorsement term, or having to do anything regarding humans - or that 'intelligence' is in itself an endorsement and something so extremely good that only humans can be bestowed with it. In reality, these comparisons only appeared after the boom of generative AI and would've been seen as ludicrous by any AI researchers prior to it.
Sure. If the goal is intelligence then LLMs fail. LLMs do not currently have the same intelligence as humans.
If a human being in front of me were to answer my question like an LLM does, I would think they are an overly confident parrot.
Not saying LLMs are bad, they are an incredible tool. Just not intelligence. Words matter.