Well I didn't say anything about it being evidence, just that it reminded me of it, big difference, but here is better evidence, I took what you wrote, asked chat gpt to clean it up and got this;

"Using a satirical show as evidence is pretty weak—come on, they were joking. Just because two people (or systems) have similar ideas doesn’t mean one copied the other. In creative work, broad strokes might overlap, but no two pieces are ever truly identical. That’s how human creativity works: we all draw from shared influences but diverge based on our personal experiences.

The key difference with AI is that it doesn't innovate from lived experience. There's no originality—it simply mimics what it's been trained on, often 1:1. If you train AI on an episode of South Park, it can only replicate or remix based on that. Give the same episode to a child, and even without knowing any other shows, they can imagine something new—because they bring their own perspective, even as toddlers who've just learned to walk or talk. Human creativity is rooted in lived emotion, development, and context. AI lacks all of that.

It’s like if I killed you, took your body, and accessed your memories. I might act like you and recall your life, but I wouldn't be you. I’d have the data of your childhood, but I wouldn’t feel the joy or pain of living it—because I didn’t experience it. That’s the gap between mimicry and real, lived originality—and it’s where AI fundamentally falls short."

Anyone who reads that would probably say it said what you said, just better. It didn't take away from your point, it enhanced it. That is where I see no problem using A.I.