No, no it doesn't.

If I type "is a bad city" into google, it autosuggests my question to be "is detroit a bad city". This doesn't imply that google's algorithm feels detroit is bad, or even that it thinks detroit is bad. There is no emotion, no consciousness involved.

Unfortunately, as "AI" gets more sophisticated people are going to forget what the "A" stands for.

> It feels like we just keeping shifting the goal posts.

Defining "intelligence" is and always has been a bit of a trap. Many non-sapient things exhibit intelligent behavior - crows use tools, Wikipedia has boundless knowledge, and paper contains traces of written intelligence. It's not hard to reconcile ChatGPT with our world, it's merely hard to use it as an analog for humanity. Language is indeed linked with anthropology, but not equivalent to it.

> if I tell a bot "I'm going to turn you off now" and it tries to stop me, that implies it feels fear.

That implies that it has finished a sentence with whatever seemed to come next. The most-likely response to someone using frightening language is to emulate the human responses it's trained on. It thinks a frightened response would satisfy you, and apparently it was right.

LOL no. At least not for anyone outside of a few echo chambers. I have literally not spoken with a single human outside of one subset of the tech industry who says stuff like this.

> I agree. On the other hand, if I tell a bot "I'm going to turn you off now" and it tries to stop me, that implies it feels fear.

I wrote a Perl program (an IRC bot) that did this as a teenager. AI achieved /s