first you need to find a way to differentiate human thinking from machine thinking. you need to basically show how human thought is not the result of statistical learning and inference but something completely different. if it is not possible, the distinction is moot, something that only appeals to emotion.

fwiw I think there’s no valuable distinction. Both take in their learnings and evaluation an output.

It’s even pretty common for us humans to hallucinate outputs.

Remember that restaurant we went to in Rome where we had pizza?

No, it was Paris, and we didn’t have pizza we had crepes.

We’re not that different.

It "feels" different to be "me".

Then because we are social animals, we presume without evidence that this is the same for other people as well.

We (most of us anwyay) don't form social bonds with machines, so there lies the difference.

There's a difference, but "merely" a social one.

Asimov wrote about it (Bicentennial Man, 1976).

The loneliness epidemic is widespread and an AI "friend" is palliative.

Sadly, it's not that the artificial voice is replacing the authentic human relationship.