That's not the impression I get from the discussions on HN. The impression I get is that a substantial minority (if it's not an actual majority) of commenters are convinced that it's qualitatively different than earlier language models and that it can "understand" text. The interesting thing is that the same kinds of comments were made about GPT-2 and I guess we'll see them with GPT-4 and so on, also.
Even what you say about GPT-3 performing "logical" tasks (by which I assume you mean what is more often referred to as "reasoning") is an example of that kind of overenthusiastic misunderstanding. It's a language model. It can predict the next tokens in a sequence. It can't reason. If the next tokens happen to randomly match what you'd expect to see from a system capable of reasoning, then it can appear as if it's performing reasoning, but that speaks more to your expectations than to the system's capabilities.
And in my experience it's been extremely difficult to convince people of this and to remind them that we know exactly what GPT-3 does and there's no super secret hidden magick to it that somehow makes it capable of doing something it's not designed to do. OpenAI itself of course are the ones responsible for this confusion because their published papers are full of unsubstantiated claims about the ability of GPT-3 to do things other than predict the next tokens in a sequence (like "learning the rules of arithmetic" etc).