No it doesn't. This is the core of their problem with AI being regarded as intelligent or actually knowing anything at all. AI is a simulation of intelligence. It appears intelligent from an outside observer, but it actually doesn't "know" anything. The Chinese Room argument is exactly the point. The man in the machine, the AI running code, knows nothing.

Here's another way of looking at it. If there were no humans who recognized the AI as intelligent, would it still "know" anything? A human alone in the world would still be intelligent because people have subjective experience and both know and know that they know. An AI alone in the world would know nothing because there would be no human there to give its knowledge any meaning.

Take the hoopla over AI art. Many artists are worried that AI produces better art than they do. Technically, that may be true, but what is Art without the human mind that perceives it? AI doesn't know it's producing art because the AI doesn't know anything. It just produces a bunch of colors and patterns that it learned from examining art, and the resulting output is interpreted as art by humans who do actually "know" what art is, but the AI has no idea what it's producing or how that is being interpreted.

The idea that these guys are jealous is silly. You mention that idea a number of times, so be careful you aren't projecting. They are not jealous. They are merely pointing out that AI devotees, those who believe on faith that AI's actually know something and perhaps are even conscious, those devotees have gone off the deep end.