You’re saying it’s not obvious that AI and humans are different, but that’s the default assumption. What’s the affirmative argument for how we’re the same?
Physicalism, or more accurately that we're both made of matter and that the structure of brains gives rise to intelligent behavior in such a way as to be analogous to computers. Note that I did not say that computers or neural networks are like the brain's neurons, merely that matter gives rise to computational abilities when organized in particular ways. This is the physicalist approach in philosophy, that there is nothing beyond the physical. If this weren't true, then we wouldn't be able to identify parts of the brain that do certain things, and that damage to the brain in those areas wouldn't affect the ability to do said things.
Of course, if you are a mind-body dualist or support idealism, you will think that humans are somehow different than other arrangements of matter that give rise to computation.
To be clear, I’m not asking for the argument that it’s possible for a computer to be somehow “the same” as humans. I’m asking for the argument that AI as it presently exists is “the same”. Because you’re not making this argument about dogs or parrots or Markov chains or Microsoft Clippy, but you are making it about generative neural networks.
