First, statistical equations just don't work that way. There is no most-random arrangement of the molecules of a gas, otherwise, that optimum would be observed and become a reliable structure. Then we would see it as expected, and not random at all. Maximizing stochastic entropy is never a deterministic process.
Likewise, there is no 'most free future', there are many futures with largely equivalent freedom, so it is possible to maintain paths to an array of maximal points, and virtually impossible to establish a single maximum at any time. Choosing cannot be done by ordering options, there are infinitely many of them, nor does it require the same decision as any other holder of the same options at a given time, as a huge swath of values will be equivalent within the knowable tolerance.
So yeah, someone trying to do this is still free.
Still, this would not be my definition of intelligence, but of prudence. Briggs is not an idiot, and the continuum between convergence (J-ity) and divergence (P-ity) in intellectual preferences is observed and realistic. Deciding one of the two is 'really intelligence' is just silly.
If we just pursue the optimal freedom in the future, we may well all be dead before we start enjoying any actual freedom in the present. I don't want really happy grandchildren at the cost of universal depression right now!
Not that we could not use a lot more 'prudence', by this definition than we as a culture are showing currently...
- yes, we are avoiding '-ness' on purpose...
- The J and P in Myers-Briggs lingo are Judging and Perceiving, but in a more traditional sense they are Justice and Prudence (crossed by Courage and Temperance), thus the choice of the word.