>What the paper actually shows is that even intelligent people have a bias towards perceiving patterns in randomness

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but...

you'd have to provide a more rigorous rebuttal to be taken seriously.

AGI can exist without sapience and intelligence is a continuum. you can't just hand wave away GPT's capabilities which is why the sharpest minds on the planet are poking this new machine to work out wtf is going on.

human intelligence is a black box. we judge it by its outputs from given inputs. GPT is already producing human-like outputs.

a common rebuttal is: "but it doesn't *really* think/understand/feel", to which my response is: ...and? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ what does that even mean?