The point you brought from the beginning was that a language model cannot beat a Turing test, and the only actual "argument" you brought was: he failed in X task, and the conclusion was, "he doesn't understand reality", what would happen if he actually answered correctly? Would he have suddenly acquired the ability to understand reality? I don't think so; To me it is clear that this AI already has a deep understanding of reality and the fact that chatGPT failed a task doesn't convince me otherwise and it shouldn't convince you either, these kinds of "arguments" usually fall short very soon as history has shown, you can find a lot of articles and posts on the net carrying arguments like yours (even from 2022) that have been outdated by now, the point is that these neural networks are flexible enough to understand you when you write, understand reality when you ask about geography or anything else, and flexible enough to beat a Turing test even when they are trained "only" on text and do not need to experience reality themselves, and the imitation game (as it was called by Turing) can be beaten by a machine that has been trained to imitate, no matter if the machine is "really" thinking or just "simulating thinking" (the Chinese room), beating the test wouldn't be a step toward artificial general intelligence as a lot of people seems to erroneously believe, the actual step toward artificial general intelligence is alignment, maybe agents etc