What evidence do I have that I'm more than a fancy autocomplete, myself? The use of squishy protestations, in lieu of objective metrics, make LeCun's argument rather unconvincing.
GPT is not trying to make a point and is not capable of changing its mind. You, hopefully, are.
Edit: I don't think you should be getting downvoted because it's a valid (and interesting) question.
But this uncovers difficult questions about free will. If we're all just autocompleting based on a combination of the world around us, our internal state, and the physical laws, then what even is intelligence anyway? This view reduces thought to nothing more than an interesting dust storm.
Still, I find the original argument compelling, if not logically convincing. There does seem to be something missing from GPT-3 that differs fundamentally from human intelligence or AGI. But maybe that's an illusion.
Edit: I don't think you should have been downvoted, since your question is valid and constructive in my view.
That's pretty much it. I do belive it's possible to actually develop "will", but almost nobody thinks that they need to work on such things. They confuse being a programmed robot with being a programmer.