Given a list of moves, do you think you could tell which are computer v. computer and which are humans?

Not for individual moves, no. Top human players play so accurately, it would be almost impossible. Not to mention the fact that vast swathes of the opening are memorised computer moves. But over the course of a game there are usually one or two moves that are very much tells. Even top humans occasionally blunder. While 'computer moves' are characterised by having a lack of 'conventional' logic to them, and instead relying on a non-intuitive or long-term combination.

Many of AlphaZero's matches were also notable because it managed to achieve very clean strategic positions in a way that seem to be longer term and require more multitasking than a human game (AZs bishops, for example). I bet I could score (a little) more than 50% just shown a mid game board position, no moves.

So it is not 100% by any means. And AlphaZero did seem to be slightly more 'human' than Stockfish, and the games more entertaining as a result. Though still recognisably superhuman.

But I would say, the excitement in human chess is not just a set of moves, but the meta. What the players have played before, how fast they play, their use of time, where their mistakes happen, how risky do they need to play to make up points. This is often more apparent in either short time controls, long game series such as the world championship, or tournaments.

Like watching a good pitching duel in October baseball. A random number generator and pitching machine could conceivably statistically play better, but would miss the point.

Given a camera focused on the players, given commentators on set, given known histories of the players, their recent successes and failures, their past encounters against each other, given stakes, given a ticking timer and the psychological effect of time trouble, the psychological effect of a tricky move, the psychological effect of exhaustion after a six hour game, given knowledge of the players' different playing styles and my preferences... I can tell the difference between human chess and computer chess.

My enjoyment of chess is not simply a scalar function of chess moves.

With Stockfish and other traditional engines, yes. With Leela and AlphaZero, no.

Not with Stockfish or even Houdini. They both play magical moves. Note that Stockfish 9/10 can currently beat Leela and possibly even AlphaZero

That wasn’t the question being asked.

Games played by computers (with the exception of NN-based programs) have a generally-discernible feel to them that I believe most grandmasters can spot a mile away.

And that was my point too. Stockfish and houdini both play very human like moves; that's if we can even define human like moves.

Stockfish frequently sacs pawns and minor pieces for space advantage