Just because it isn't choosing between a pre-set lookup table of discrete conditions doesn't mean it is fundamentally different than something that does. The only reason this program DOESN'T do that is most likely due to the storage complexity of writing out every possible position and move in 2048, but assuming relatively infinite RAM/storage it would certainly be possible to solve 2048 that way. Since it is infeasible to do so, this program makes approximations and then picks between them. The actual process is not really that important - the end result is that the computer chooses between a set of outputs based on some sort of weights that it generates through calculation. The computer is flipping bits in a pre-defined sequence and given an identical set of inputs (including any random seeds which might be in play) it will generate identical output. It is entirely predictable, and no more representative of 'intelligence' than a gigantic Rube Goldberg machine would be.

I don't know why we have to try and ascribe some sort of 'intelligence' to things like this. Should I refer to every .JPG I see as a 'thought' because it is the result of an inexact (if predictable) calculation? Should I bask in awe at Netflix telling me what movies I might like to watch, simply because I don't know the EXACT process of matrix math it's using to correlate my ratings with other movies? Should I call my computer a 'genius' if it approximates an integral using an Euler method, or estimates the value of Pi with a Monte Carlo method? Why can't we just call these things what they are - algorithms? It's not a special new use for computing. It's not fundamentally different than storing data in an array or assigning a value to an integer - it just takes more steps. No matter how many steps you add, it doesn't make it somehow 'special' or 'intelligent'.