While we can certainly identify fallacies in the arguments of the cynics, we should likewise be careful not to fall into the broadly Skinnerian trap, or project onto things our own anthropomorphic conceptions. A Potemkin village is not a village, no matter how much like a village it appears to be to us.
The whole notion that computers or AI are capable of intelligence is simply a fantastical category mistake. A metaphor has been forgotten to be a metaphor. No matter how sophisticated AI technology could become in its apparent behavior, it cannot make the transition to bona fide intelligence. Simulation does not become the real McCoy through resemblance. This is just magical thinking. We must also account for the means by which the observable is produced. When we do, we can distinguish between a genuine behavior and a merely simulated behavior. And here is one important clue to the puzzle: there is a difference between true speech and something that merely happens to sound like speech, even when the raw data of each is indistinguishable to the ear per se. Observation is not brute. It always involves interpretation. When physicists conduct experiments, they are doing so within the context of some stack of theories[0] and background assumptions, including extra- and pre-scientific assumptions. The results of those experiments are observed which is to say read, and so observation is always theory- and assumption-laden because reading what we see or measure means taking what is made available to the senses as such and placing it in context. This is just a specific instance of what we all do in daily life (resting bitch face, or genuine irritation?). Science is nothing special in this regard.
So when you say that "anyone who has used ChatGPT and doesn't see that it can pretty reliably munge together different ideas is blind or is lying", I cannot help but respond with a "uh wut?". How have you come to conclude that ChatGPT has "ideas"? I will tell you that there is not a single idea within ChatGPT! Consider an example of an idea and see how we do. Take "triangularity", for instance. I think we can agree that "triangularity" is an idea. What makes "triangularity" different from some physical triangle? Well, there is only one "triangularity", but many triangles, each of which instantiates "triangularity" (otherwise, you could not call them all triangles; they are triangles only insofar as they instantiate some common "triangularity"). Each triangle is different from every other, and yet they are all triangles. And none of them is to be identified with "triangularity" as such, for if there is only one "triangularity", and some triangle were identical with "triangularity", then it would follow that there could only be one triangle! But, you might ask, is there perhaps a physical "triangularity" that isn't a triangle, yet something each triangle has? Well, no, because to be physical is to be concrete and particular, and "triangularity" is, by definition, general, universal, and abstract. There's no concrete magical ingredient that you can hold in your hand called "triangularity" that you can mix into cement to produce triangles.
There are other reasons why the claim that ChatGPT or whatever is intelligent isn't even wrong (like the subjectivity and observer relativity of computation in physical artifacts and computation as abstract model merely simulated through artifacts), but this appeal to abstraction, the ability to abstract from particulars and hold in your intellect what cannot exist physically except as particular, concrete instances, is central to intelligence. ChatGPT most certainly does not engage in abstraction. It would be fair to say that strictly speaking, it doesn't even parrot.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis