“electronic parrot” and outperforming almost all humans in creativity and originality is an extreme contrast to me, regardless of my misuse of terms. So I fail to understand what you want to say, since this contrast must be apparent to you too.

The original context of my comment was even more basic and to me proven by what the paper says: Those are not things it copied somewhere. Also, I still think there is no test to prove it can/can’t think.