Personally I think our common definitions of intelligence are too narrowly defined, we have a bias towards recognizing intelligence similar to our own and a blindspot for intelligent systems unlike our own. I agree with Paul Stamets that mycelia networks may have a form of intelligence quite unlike our own. Large corporations likely have intelligence of their own ('slow AIs') and may in aggregate pursue goals that no individual participant in the organization agrees with (preference falsification demonstrates how such a thing might occur.) Closer to the traditional, I think reptiles may be far more intelligent that we usually give them credit for since we have a mammalian bias against their kind. Mammalians seem to have empathy circuits that fire more often for other mammals, and this inclines us to not consider the possible intelligence of non-mammals.

So, GPT? I think that's probably a form of intelligence too, but not one that's particularly similar to our own. I also doubt that we'll have much luck getting it to ever perform at near-human levels, when you consider the data and power requirements. I think it's not simply a matter of silicon vs wetware; I think the GPT approach is substantially more different from our own than the hardware it runs on. It's a form of intelligence but that doesn't mean it is like our own.

I'm not the only one. It's industry consensus.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/22/1007539/gpt3-ope...

That doesn't answer the question.