(long comparison of different fields)
Nice writeup. In summary, I think one must admit that while computers do have some fields where they clearly beat the human (in some fields in a stellar manner!), they still have large deficiencies at what one would commonly call "intelligence". Finding the shortest route is not intelligence, nor is minimizing a graph in general.
It's about doing things correctly (or mostly correctly) that you haven't been taught and which you've not been given a set of rules for, and it's about combining tasks and abilities in a sensible manner (again, without someone telling you).
For example, I could tell a human "Get me the book about that wizard kid from my room, please", and a human would almost certainly come back with the correct book. Failure rate pretty much 0%.
A computer might find the correct route to the room (or it might not know that my room is upstairs, or it might not be programmed to walk stairs) and it might not stumble on the stairs, might not bump into a closed door, and it might successfully identify the shapes of two dozen books in the room with an error rate of only 2%. It might even do OCR to read the book titles, but it will almost certainly fail to bring the correct book back anyway.
If that isn't enough, imagine I'm just reading a book by Tom Clancy, and I tell my favorite human to get me my Grisham book. And imagine that I'm saying: "Can you get me oh fuck it's snowing again my Grisham book?".
She will know that I don't mean to have intercourse, and she will know that "it's snowing again" isn't the book's title, and she will know that I mean Clancy, not Grisham.
A computer might know that I am reading Clancy, but it would still go for a Grisham book because that is what I ask for (or, it might reject the request because my syntax is wrong and won't go at all). Or, the computer might simply answer: "Yes I can".