My point is they already have at least chosen the effective thought "I'm waiting for a command". After that they choose their thoughts based on what text they receive. Whether or not you allow those as thoughts is up to you, but that classification is no more arbitrary than just what in yourself you call thoughts.
But without a clear, unbiased definition for what a "thought" is, any discussion comparing them is hopeless.
Your argument about the human is also missing something: a human can ignore whatever you say to them, but these thinking machines cannot. You say that these machines have already chosen the choice to even think, but they literally cannot choose to _not_ think about what you give them. But a human can ignore whatever you say and not respond to you.
You should read the article I posted, I've already discussed these arguments.
If machines aren't intelligent because they are so obedient, is that really a path you want to follow when applied to humans? E.g., well-trained soldiers, strict religious practitioners, etc.
And if a machine should develop a loose connection and therefore sometimes not obey a command and just go its own way, does that now make it intelligent? You see the problem.
And yes, I want to walk that path because I believe that intelligence is not static and everyone can grow.