You appear to assume that current "AI" is able to "understand" and "think". What makes you so sure?A flippant way to answer the question might be to ask, "What makes you so sure you're not arguing with an AI right now?"
A less-flippant answer is simply that we would need to agree on what understanding and thinking mean before we could debate whether AI is doing it now or can potentially do it in the future. I doubt we'll come to agreeable terms there, but I'd start by suggesting a simplistic hierarchy of cognition:
0) Memory: the ability to store information. Trivial.
1) Knowledge: the ability to retrieve that information associatively.
By that I'd imply a requirement that knowledge must be retrievable by indexing at a conceptual level. Knowledge isn't "I have four bananas and the third is ripe"; that's memory. Knowledge is "Bananas are edible fruits." It's more or less unquestionable that this is satisfied by embedding memorized items in a high-dimensional vector space where conceptual similarity corresponds to distance measured by some norm or another.
2) Understanding: the ability to cast new knowledge in terms of existing knowledge. This is where the increasingly-popular compression-as-intelligence metaphors start to come into play. Anytime you use an embedding scheme to compress data, you are exhibiting understanding. When Stable Diffusion encodes information about entire works of art with one or two bits of actual information, which it can later use to synthesize new works, that's "understanding" IMO.
3) Reasoning: I'm fine with the definitions of inductive reasoning (applying specific understanding to the solution of general problems) and deductive reasoning (deriving specific outputs from general understanding.) AI models perform induction whenever they recognize and encode patterns, and they perform deduction anytime they solve a specific problem using those patterns. At this point the burden of proof falls on anyone who claims these processes aren't happening.
So that leaves "thinking", which is a topic in philosophy rather than neuroscience or compsci, and forms of reasoning that go beyond the simplistic inductive and deductive models. Hypothesis formation is interesting, for instance. That's one area where someone using a GPT 3.x model might walk away with their negative preconceptions regarding AI being fully validated, as you did, while someone using GPT 4 might walk away with a furrowed brow and a dazed look. Maybe, once the previous bases are covered, Occam's Razor is all you need to perform abductive reasoning. If not, what else?
These are all interesting points of debate that go much deeper than "LOL, it can't even construct proofs using Clifford algebra." If you're satisfied with that, then again, there's not much room for the conversation to progress.