These sorts of defences seem poor form to me, like all you've done is put a stake in front of a term, without actually saying anything about the capabilities or computation of the model itself.

A good test is to clearly state what classes of computations a mouse can do that you can clearly say these models do not, especially if those are likely fundamental to general intelligence. Because it seems to me that talking from the endpoint about ‘human-like INTELLIGENCE’ or the model's purported ‘fuzzy queries’ only tells you what we already knew: that GPT-3 isn't a human. It tells you otherwise very little about what this sort of model is and is not capable of, especially in the limit.

It can give believable responses to prompts it has never seen before and is not in dataset. That's not memorising.

What do you mean human level intelligence, its a machine learning model, it obviously has no idea what words or sentences mean, that is not really the intention...