> Yes, GPT-3 produces grammatically correct sentences but it still can't form a coherent idea or meaning and express it in sentences afterwards - that's what humans would do.

There's considerable debate over whether humans can have a coherent idea before it is reduced into symbolic language, and it's not clear how you would distinguish this sequence of events, anyway.

It's pretty clear what GPT-3 does doesn't match the common rationalization of human subjective experience of cognition, but it's not at all clear, AFAICT, that what the human brain does matches that rationalization, either.

Which is not to say I think GPT-3 has anything like the kind, much less the level, of understanding humans have, I just think some of the common arguments arrayed in casually dismissing it are based on suppositions about human cognition that aren't sufficiently examined.