I've seen this reflex quite a few times now. To diminish the impressive capabilities of the latest LLMs, one resorts to the assertion that they're not sentient, or not truely intelligent, or various other semantic diversions. No one claimed that. GP was all about usefulness.

Then GP misrepresented the "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots" paper, which spoke about meaning. But GP also said "meaning" several times, so no.

There's some haziness here about the difference between comprehensible output and comprehending. To put it mildly. I mean that's been the whole question for five or six years.