So, If speech production (or sentence construction) was what you meant by saying “it’s the same for human responses,” then yes, we agree. Both are probabilistic word generators and likely work in similar ways.

This is what I meant.

However, if you meant the entirety of human response—as in from hearing/reading a comment, thinking about it, responding—is the same as current LLMs generating text. I strongly disagree.

That would be crazy, I’m glad you would disagree with that.

As for me asserting human response is chemistry is more like asserting AI is electromagnetism, there are many reasons why, but the simplest illustration would be this:

I think it is entirely possible to build an inorganic but still functional human brain on electrical hardware. (In other words, full blown transhumanism or at the very least, “AGI”) If human response is chemistry in organics, it would be electromagnetism in silicon.

This is moving into a funny gray area, but what you are talking about is, I think, only possible if you take a route like the one covered in Jeff Hawkins’ “A thousand brains”. It’s not the most fun read if you’re not into neuroscience, but the second half is pretty relevant regardless.