A LLM has no such concept. It is not truly capable of accepting your rational arguments; it may nod emphatically in its response after a few sentences, but once your input leaves its context window, all bets are off. We can retrain it with your particular conversation, and we will increase likelihood it will more readily agree with you, but that is likely a drop in the bucket of the larger corpus.
But this is well past technology and into philosophy, of which I can safely say my mental model for the topic would likely be rather frustrating to others.
Setting aside the current limitations of LLMs for a moment, this is just a really unfortunate view on a new tech in my opinion. Its nothing unique here so I don't mean to single you out. I've seen it plenty of other places. The idea, though, that we effectively imply that most humans are idiots and we just need to invent something that is as good at being a functional idiot but for much less money leaves humanity in a terrible place. What does the world look like if we succeed at that?
To you main question, though, I think differences in human opinions and ideas can be easily misconstrued as a lack of intelligence. Our would also consider environmental factors of the average person.
I'll stick with the US as its what I am most familiar with. The average american has what I'd consider a high level of stress, chronic health conditions, one or more pharmaceutical prescriptions, and our food system is sorely lacking and borderline poisonous. With all those factors in play I can't put too much weight behind my view of the average person's intelligence.
Affluent societies that abandon an ideal of personal development bound to forces that bring to a catastrophic configuration of society, with devastating effects: the absurdity, the risks and impact, the diversion from propriety merit all focus.
Nonetheless, i do wish for a Star Trek like future and we can't reach it as long as we humans work normal jobs we can automate away.
Secondly, the very fact that you can't convince some people to "get it" (whatever the hell that thing may be, regardless of whether you're the one who's actually failing to get something at the same time) is evidence of their self directed reasoning. For better or worse, it's there, along with a sense of self that even the ostensibly dumbest person has, excepting maybe those with truly profound mental disabilities.
None of these things apply to LLMs, so why not drop the semantics about similarity or much less equivalence? Sel awareness is a sensation that you yourself feel every day as a conscious human being in your own right, and no evidence whatsoever indicates that any LLM has even a smidge of it.
AI is a set of engineered tools and they need to be adequate for the job.
When we speak about general Intelligence, it will have to be acute and reliable. Surely the metric will have to be well above low bars for humans, already because for that we already have humans available, and because, as noted, that low bar level is easily not «adequate for the job».
How often have you talked to someone and showed them evidence through logic or other means and they just don't get it? Or just don't want to accept it?
Are people who do not properly self reflect, non-intelligent?
AI only needs to be as good as a human and cheaper