The rebuttal to this view is "provide a principled definition of intelligence". Doesn't seem like the article does this. If someone could do that, it would be

The rebuttal to this view is "provide a principled definition of intelligence". Doesn't seem like the article does this. If someone could do that, it would be a significant stride towards producing an intelligent entity. As far as "AI research" we're somewhat stuck in the position that humans "can't define intelligence but know it when they see it". But if we abandon this intuition based approach, it seems like we wind-up with the argument, "this toaster is intelligent 'cause you can't prove it's not".