Without providing even a basic definition of intelligence you can't proclaim "this isn't intelligence". You seem to have settled on "Human Intelligence" but then incorrectly conflate that with "reasoning".
Your own examples contradict your assertion: "When agents found their comment were being deleted they started to copy-pasted them with "ZZZ-" names because they (wrongly) thought entries were being deleted in alphabetical order."
You are describing the agents applying hypotheses and reasoning. No one programmed those particular behaviors. Thinking that the entries might be deleted in alphabetical order, changing their behavior to avoid that (not randomly, mind you, but by prefixing with ZZ). That is not monkeys on typewriters. Whether a hypothesis is incorrect obviously does not indicate a lack of reasoning.
You assert that the conversation keeps shifting, but it has not changed from this:
> "Not intelligent in the way we recognize in biological organisms, but certainly something beyond a mere Markov chain."
> "[AI and actual thinking] are two entire different concepts. Who developed these technologies used the words "thinking" and "reasoning", this does not mean they are actually thinking and reasoning."
You're the only one mentioning "humanization" which seems to indicate your real assertion, that intelligence must be a uniquely human trait and ascribing intelligence to AI means to treat them as human.
Your own examples contradict your assertion: "When agents found their comment were being deleted they started to copy-pasted them with "ZZZ-" names because they (wrongly) thought entries were being deleted in alphabetical order."
You are describing the agents applying hypotheses and reasoning. No one programmed those particular behaviors. Thinking that the entries might be deleted in alphabetical order, changing their behavior to avoid that (not randomly, mind you, but by prefixing with ZZ). That is not monkeys on typewriters. Whether a hypothesis is incorrect obviously does not indicate a lack of reasoning.
You assert that the conversation keeps shifting, but it has not changed from this:
> "Not intelligent in the way we recognize in biological organisms, but certainly something beyond a mere Markov chain."
> "[AI and actual thinking] are two entire different concepts. Who developed these technologies used the words "thinking" and "reasoning", this does not mean they are actually thinking and reasoning."
You're the only one mentioning "humanization" which seems to indicate your real assertion, that intelligence must be a uniquely human trait and ascribing intelligence to AI means to treat them as human.