Are you asking for the current understanding of what specific parts of human intelligence are economically valuable?
But beyond that, part of the nature of that change over time is that things tend to be valuable because they're scarce.
So the definition from upthread becomes roughly "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at [useful things where the ability to do those things is scarce]", or alternatively "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at [useful things that can't be automated]".
Which only makes sense if the reflexive (it's dependent on the thing being observed) part that I'm substituting in brackets is pinned to a specific as-of date. Because if it's floating / references the current date that that definition is being evaluated for, the definition is nonsensical.
But to extend your point, I think we really need to be explicit about the assumptions being made. Everyone loves to say intelligence is easy to define but if it were then we'd have a definition. But if "you" figure it out and it's so simple then "we" are all too dumb and it needs better explaining for our poor simple minds. Or there's a lot of details that make it hard to pin down and that's why there's not a definition of it yet. Kinda like how there's no formal definition of life
Google search can't achieve anything practical, because it has no agency. It has no agency partly because it doesn't have the required intelligence to do anything on its own, other than display results for something else, that does have agency, to use.
The applicable definitions, from the dictionary:
Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Agency: the ability to make decisions and act independently.
