I agree with Chollet, intelligence shouldn’t be measured by specific tasks. Saying it is the ability to learn, or learn new things, or apply previous knowledge to new tasks, is too fuzzy. Many different types of systems could meet these requirements, but inconsistently. In my book A Thousand Brains, I argued that the presence of intelligence should be measured by how a system works internally. This is how we determine if something is a computer or not. My toaster and my laptop both have computers in them even though they have different capabilities. They have read/write memory, a CPU, etc. and are both universal Turing machines.
In the future, we will adopt similar terminology for AI systems. Biological brains, and Thousand Brains AI, both have the ability to directly sense the world, the ability to move their sensors relative to the world for learning and inference, and to manipulate the world to achieve goals. Internally, knowledge is represented using reference frames that capture the structure of the world.
With this definition, you can imagine range of intelligent machines from small and limited, to super-human. I haven’t tried to reduce this to an elevator pitch, but I believe this is how we will define intelligence in the future.