Thinking is an internal process. It is not just determined by its output. When we roll dice we do not say the dice decided to land on three and seven.
That's not true, at least a lot of the time. Watch an episode of Paw Patrol, go see the latest Marvel movie or listen to number 6 or 7 on the top 40 charts.
A huge amount of what we consider "creative" endeavours that only a human can produce have nothing to do with meaning or experience and are simply a group of people trying to create something that "sounds right" or looks cool, or in the case of a lot of kid's content, merely inoffensive to the largest segment of society possible.
I'm not saying that GPT is going to win the Pulitzer Prize any time soon, but the line between "human text has meaning, machine text doesn't" is quite blurry and process-dependent.
Kind of like the old joke about English teachers looking too deeply into classic literature, isn’t it? I might not intend to relate and extend layers of context with the line, “John sat squarely on the desk,” but a reader observing that line as part of a surrounding text could infer meaning and purpose beyond what I originally intended.
With AI-generated text, that dance of writers filling (or deliberately avoiding) their work with meaning, and readers lifting the meaning out of the work, becomes much less human in and of itself. Or does it? Will schools of the future choose AI-written stories and film for students to learn from, over material written by people?