Eventually it can do your example of unique human intelligence whatever that example is.

Another example of unique human intelligence: drown in existential dread.

I can do that, you can do that, but will a computer be able to do it?

I've written this in another comment but I'll repeat here. What you're asking really boils down to a combination of whether a human brain can be simulated and whether human intelligence is merely due to the physical brain (or do you believe in the existence of some intangible consciousness that cannot be replicated by a machine). Assume you believe both to be true, then your simulated brain is surely able to drown in existential dread because it's capable of no more and no less than the human one.

I mean, you joke, but existential dread might be an adaptive response to a hostile environment.

...a situation we might want to simulate for training purposes

Ai won’t, but a machine with true intelligence will. That was the point of talking about ai needing to be i.

So you're defining "AI" to be anything that we can currently program a computer to do, and "I" to be anything we can't yet? That doesn't seem like a useful distinction to me. Unless you're using "I" to mean general (artificial) intelligence, in which case you should probably use the more well-known term.

No, please don’t straw man my point. I’ll assume you know what ai is and that you understand there is a huge difference between that and human intelligence. I am arguing that ai will never be able to DM a D&D game. For that, a computer will need human intelligence.

But AI definition is still target-in-motion, very blurred.

Why the but? I didn’t say anything that disagrees with that statement.

I feel like it's far too blurry to make claims such as "will never be able to DM a D&D game".