[antonvs]

That's an unreasonably high bar.

We already have irrefutable evidence of what can reasonably be called intelligence, from a functional perspective, from these models. In fact in many, many respects, the models outperform a majority of humans on many kinds of tasks requiring intelligence. Coding-related tasks are an especially good example.

Of course, they're not equivalent to humans in all respects, but there's no reason that should be a requirement for intelligence.

If anything, the onus lies on you to clarify what you think can't be achieved by these models, in principle.