I’m not redefining anything, I’m just pointing out that intelligence is not as narrow as most people assume, it’s a broad term that encompasses various gradations.

"I'm not redefining anything, I'm just insisting that my definition of the term is the only correct one."

You're running a motte-and-bailey here. First you say someone else is definitively "not correct" in their usage of the term, and then you go on to make a more easily defensible argument of "well who is to say what the meaning of the term truly is? It's a very gray area".

Then 99% of animal species would not qualify as intelligent.

By some definitions, certainly...and that's the whole point.

You may rightfully argue that term AI is too broad and that we could narrow it down to mean specifically “human-like” AI, but the truth is, that at this point, in computer science AI already refers to a wide range of systems, from basic decision-making algorithms to complex models like GPTs or neural networks.

I think taken as a whole the term "AI" has more meaning if you take both words in the phrase into account together rather than separately.

For instance, computer opponents in early video games naturally fit the moniker "AI" because even though it obviously does not possess intelligence in the general sense of the term, the developers are trying to artificially fool you into thinking it does.

Ultimately, it's probably futile to try to rescue the phrase from the downward spiral it is on into meaninglessness, but I do not believe the word "intelligence" necessarily needs to spiral down in concert.