Are you comfortable with the claim that some human writing has more insight than some other? Then you should also feel comfortable judging ChatGPT as ‘not demonstrating insight’, even if you can’t define exactly what it is.

No, I'm not comfortable with the claim that squiggles on paper can have "insight". Maybe they can demonstrate insight (on behalf of the writer). But if there's no writer, there's no insight.

I've of the opposite opinion. I read an insight in an article; it doesn't matter where it comes from, its still an insight.

The insight is from the paper to my head. The author doesn't have to matter.

Well, thank you for exposing for me the fact that there's a difference between abstract insight, and an insight as a definite object. I hadn't noticed that before, and now I think about it, it's not obvious to me that the two are closely-related.

So sure: an insight can be conveyed in writing. And I suppose that if that's true, it doesn't matter where the writing came from.

Worm: What is the secret of enlightenment, Master?

Master: You gotta fight for the right to partaaaay!

At that moment, Worm gained insight.

That was a short phrase used to convey the concept that my direct question didn't get answered immediately. Not to suggest anything about the concept of AI, real consciousness nor civil rights for synthetic organisms.