Some of that bazinga's most misanthropic and bootlicky takes have already been deleted by mods so I can't directly quote them, but what was deleted were some logical rational whoppers such as "all of you are under an idealistic delusion that human beings will always outcompete machines in work tasks if they believe strongly enough." 
That ship sailed at least as far back as the myth of Paul Bunyan. Personally, the moment I added wheels to my travel bag, those wheels made me obsolete as a travel bag carrier. Fucking no one took that position but that bazinga didn't want to confront positions that were actually taken and kept doing victory laps while congratulating themself. 
The most persistent take remaining was not even far off from my slight exaggeration of the conclusions drawn by that bazinga in the title of this thread: they claimed that there is no difference between LLMs and you, right now, sitting here reading this text. Persisting with that take with sea lioning tactics demanding that everyone else prove otherwise (so much for extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence) and dodging every refutation of it already in that thread, the implication of their take is that every time AI Dungeon tells you "Count Grey" might have shown up, uninvited, to your Gundam interactive fanfic, smirking and chuckling before violently murdering everyone in the room with "squelch" sounds, that isn't just a bad data set fed to it by edgelords: that was from a nascent potentially-sapient ghost in the machine that may soon be at least as intelligent as you. 
Considering I'm shipping out in a few days and I really don't like posting from a phone so I'm likely to be away from here for an indefinite time after that, it almost feels like supernatural timing to have this sort of ultimate bazinga show up now. 
Yes I posted a lot in that particular thread about Redditors being really superstitious about the tech magic of LLMs, but then look who approached me.
Creating a fundamentalist techno religion based around the worship of Microsoft's Clippy
The "you can't prove that the treat printer isn't conscious" gambit could easily be applied to an automated voice recognition system on a phone. Or fucking anything that responds to user input and provides some probabilty and dataset-driven response. Why stop there? Why not say we can't disprove that Clippy is conscious/sentient/sapient? That's the magic of extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence where the burden of proof is sophistically pushed on the doubters!