To me it looked like you just repeated a meme, there isn't a large number of such people you talked about here on HN, so there is no need to repeat that meme everywhere.
If someone says "Computers will never be smarter than humans", then sure go ahead, post it. But most of the time it is just repeated whenever someone says that ChatGPT could be made smarter, or there is some class of problem it struggles with.
Make the thesis "some parts of human thinking works like an LLM" and you would see way less resistance. Making extreme statements like "humans are no different from LLM" will just hurt discussion since it is very clearly not true. Humans can drive cars, balance on a tight rope etc, so it is very clear that humans have systems that an LLM lacks.
The objection people would come with then is something like "but we could add those other systems to an LLM, it is no different from a human!". But then the thesis would be "humans are no different from an LLM connected to a whole bunch of other systems", which is no different from saying "some parts of human thinking works like an LLM" as I suggested above.
The only reason we are talking about LLM is because it is the latest shiny thing. My overall point was that we are chipping away at what it means to be human through many advances in AI, across disciplines. NOT that LLM is the entire brain, it is just latest solving one aspect. So LLM is just latest 'check that off the list' of what a human can do but computer can't.
If someone says "Computers will never be smarter than humans", then sure go ahead, post it. But most of the time it is just repeated whenever someone says that ChatGPT could be made smarter, or there is some class of problem it struggles with.