Questions about AI seem to always bring out these naysayers. I can only assume they feel threatened? You see the same tedious fallacies again and again:

• AI can't "think" (using some arbitrary and unstated definition of the word "think" that just so happens to exclude AI by definition).
• They're stochastic parrots and can only reproduce things they've seen in their training set (despite copious evidence to the contrary).
• They're just "next word predictors" so they fundamentally are incapable of doing X (where X is a thing they have already done).