> The post you're responding to defined intelligence as learning rate.

How is the learning method or rate related to intelligence? LLMs learn during the training, much faster than any human. Yes, they drastically slow down their learning afterwards, but they still can learn a bit from an uploaded document or a web site.

And in the end they may be better at intelligence than any human, depending on the task and time given. I though intelligence is not about history but current performance.

How is this different than my examples, in which a possibility to fly is judged by (learning to) flapping the wings and not by the actual result?

> And don't bother yapping about context windows, it's just not anything like learning.

That's debatable, but I don't see how it's relevant here. You can ignore that part of my reply above, and the argument will remain unchanged.

Nevertheless, I don't understand how this not learning. Without it, no meaningful intelligent task can really be performed. LLM/human must learn the relevant bits from current situation in order to answer meaningfully. Often it requires to actually acquire new knowledge like reading a new piece of text unknown before. Feel free to link to a relevant discussion for me if you find this boring and settled.