> The entire article is saying "it looks kinds like a human in some ways, but people are being fooled!"
> You can't really say that without at least attempting the admittedly very deep question of what an authentic human is.
> To me, it's intelligent because I can't distinguish its output from a person's output, for much of the time.
I think the article does address that rather directly, and that it is also is addressing very specifically your setence about what you can and can't distinguish.
LLMs are not capable of symbolic reasoning[0] and if you understand how they work internally, you will realize they do no reasoning whatsoever.
Humans and many other animals are fully capable of reasoning outside of language (in the former case, prior to language acquisition), and the reduction of "intellgence" to "language" is a catagory error made by people falling vicim to the ELIZA effect[1], not the result of a sum of these particular statistical methods being equal real intelligence of any kind.