No. Maybe proof that some intelligence is encoded into the algebraic relationships between all the words ever written, but “general intelligence” would be a misleading way to describe it.
I don't think that's true. While it's a valued characteristic, society also respects athletes, cooks, nurses, or businessmen, none of them because of their thinking capacity. The people who assign the most worth to intelligence are people who value their own, so there is a bias inside our bubble.
I'm old enough to remember people saying that about chess, finding things in images, translation, composing music, go, and creating artistically pleasing images.
At what point do we run out of things to say we can do that computers can't? And what happens then?
We will be forced into the most novel (and high risk) edge spaces of the human experience -- because without novelty we will lack any new experiences to compress into new cognitive behaviors to pass on to our young. And then we will run out of reasons to exist in the forward march of time.
That or, we somehow change enough to learn to live simply because of our shared existence with eachother, the novel engagement with ourselves and others, and learn a certain contentment with our position in the universe as unimaginably rare, but also limited.
Sure, but the point is that it's not their intelligence that's valued. You'd often praise a great professor by saying they're very smart, but very rarely a great cook.
I do think that there is an important moral distinction between sentient beings and not.