At some level, intelligence requires logic, rationality, and conceptualization, all of which are topics which have evaded clear definition despite millennia of philosophy directly addressing the issues.
You’re demanding this because you aren’t comfortable with the implication that a computer can pass our existing tests for intelligence, so you rationalize that with the comforting thought that those tests were not meant to identify intelligence. Tests like the SAT or the bar exam or AP English. Or tests for theory of mind or common sense or logic. Those tests aren’t testing for ‘intelligence’ - they can’t be. Because a computer passed them.
It’s okay. We can make new tests.
To the point underneath, humans do not answer in as predictable a way as ChatGPT. Your answer, for example, I am confident does not come from ChatGPT.
Edit: if I've horribly mangled the Turing test definition, please let me know
Turing test is easy, I had 2 chat bots talk about other users in the channel while besides some trigger words ignoring what those other users had to say. The human subjects got angry successfully which means it was important to them.