I agree with that. However, many animals express an intelligence we can at least relate to. I expect that the same might go for non-biological AI, at least to the degree in which we operate in the same environment, but maybe not. For sure. I don't think there's a difference between intelligence and the perfect imitation of it. It's in the eye of the beholder. It's telling that we can't even agree upon the fundamentals of our own intelligence. We just know it when we see it. I'll add the book. I am starting an actual doc now. I'm not sure if you've read Godel, Escher, Bach, but it's fantastic. The rest of what I've read from Hofstadter are variations on themes outlined in GEB.When you start a system in an environment utterly devoid of biology, the structures and means that will appear have no reason to resemble our own.
He saw "intelligence" as an impossible thing to judge; he argued that "imitating intelligence" was easy. I think the processes you're talking about are going to lead to "intelligence" - I'd argue that in many ways, they already have.