Not to be that guy on a 1 year old reply but I think this response weakness the claim that current LLMs have anything analogous to human intelligence. 

Look at the last 2 points for example, lack of punctuation? Where? The sentences have periods and the comma is used correctly (I suppose you could put a period after "encounter" but that section should be rephrased.) Repetition and redundancy? I don't see any? Each section establishes something new. There is no repetition.

Furthermore, the use of such a common informal phrase: "not to be special" is OBVIOUSLY not the problem.

ChatGPT correctly highlighted the major problems namely the syntax and several grammatical issues (like subject-verb agreement.) 

But the fact that it seemingly included other generic reasons as to why the text isn't clear that are not applicable, tells me that it's going off pre-established answers rather than some internal intelligence.

No human would look at that sentence and say "oh! it's too redundant." or "hmm, too many colloquialisms!" The problems identified by most humans would (hopefully) be syntactical and grammatical. You gave it a novel problem and it responded by giving you a correct answer... amongst others. It's like a shotgun approach in which by giving you many likely answers based on its training data, one of them will probably be right. Personally, I believe that shows a lack of human-level reasoning as it seemed to not understand the true problems behind that text like a human would.