[resu_nimda]

But this is a very narrow and, if I dare to say, ignorant and self-centric view, because it implicitly relies on the thinking of “we are far more intelligent than any other life form, and human's intelligence is the only way intelligence can be work”.

I would rephrase that last bit as "human intelligence is the only way intelligence has been proven to work." We just don't and can't know which bits of human intelligence are necessary and which are arbitrary. For example, an emotional framework, the aspect of having drives and "desires" that lead to "illogical" and "irrational" behavior and interactions with others - is that required or not? How can we begin to reason about a non-human-centric concept of intelligence? Given how little we understand, I think that is too tall a task at this point.

and maybe, entities such like countries or the internet are actually of more intelligent “life” forms, just we haven’t realized that yet because they don’t look like us at all

I do believe that the collective aspect of intelligence has been wrongly ignored in AI. We try to build these monolithic beasts that take in mounds of information and try to make sense of it all themselves. But (yes, relying again upon the only known implementation) a single human on its own will never achieve the modern sense of intelligent behavior. It needs a society of humans, the benefit of a shared amorphous corpus of understanding that exists outside of any individual. And it requires many independent individuals with their own perspectives and ideas to probe and extend the boundaries of that understanding.