A worthwhile discussion is based off an exchange of logic.

I've seen enough of these "AI are just like us!" dingbats to know it's not worth my time engaging them, because they aren't operating on logic.

Sounds illogical to force a conversation and than withdraw with a argument about logic while dismissing every counter argument. :D

seems you're getting unnecessarily hung up on the "how" of it.

planes fly but not like birds. does it matter from an "object moved from point A to B through the air" point of view? not really.

LLMs are kind of the same. it's obvious from even the most cursory examination that they're doing something quite different to statistical word mashing. is it being achieved in the same way as your gray matter? no.

in a black box sense, does it matter? also no.

The concepts of lift and flight actually are the same for birds and planes and insects and drones and hellicoptors…… or fish! And whales. And any other organism that uses voyance and lift to ‘fly’ through the ‘medium’.

Every form of intelligence we know of is operating in a fundamentally different environment to what these programs are doing.

Considering the argument is irrationally applying human rights and rights of living beings to these computers running mildly complicated software, yes the "How" does matter a lot.

“Come to a conclusion” is probably wrong; “synthesize a response to a prompt based on the training data provided” is probably closer. Still, it’s what you and I would do when answering a question using information we’ve accumulated from reading various sources.

It definitely wasn't AI generated.