I think that's a great take and though they appear contradictory, I actually think both perspectives are correct. I think what both viewpoints show is that, at

I think that's a great take and though they appear contradictory, I actually think both perspectives are correct. I think what both viewpoints show is that, at the end of the day, intelligence is a broad, fuzzily defined thing, and attempting to claim that a single capability is evidence of intelligence always seems to be insufficient (from either direction). I also think your points about our own emotional attachment and thinking carefully about intelligent machines are superb. I see a lot of people chasing certain tech right now and I see a far smaller number asking whether or not this tech is something we need or want. I personally don't need to live in a world in which robots are 1:1 emulations of humans (or better). I'd be just as content to live in a world of highly specific and highly optimized collections of robots or "intelligences" only capable of doing one thing really well (a unix theory of "agents", as it were)