I mean, as someone who sort of gives a shit about the distinction between them and has the autism to insist upon not just disagreeing but explaining, here's why this is a deeply disingenuous argument:

Holographic life forms and sentient androids, as presented by the show, are fundamentally different to the current fad of calling a pattern recognition algorithm "artificial intelligence." Take for example the court scenes of The Measure of a Man, one of the ways Picard dunks on Maddox is by demonstrating that Data is capable of comprehending and accommodating situations. Now sure, any genAI slop could generate a sentence akin to what Data said, but the concept being discussed is the important thing; generative AI cannot comprehend anything.

Generative AI can only throw together patterns it has been fed and regurgitate them. It's why it can't be used as a serious research tool, and why anyone who claims to use it like that is, to be quite frank, an idiot who is going to be bit on the arse by that. It doesn't know what facts are, and it doesn't know what a fact is. It's just been trained on text, and it can reproduce text that looks like assertive factual statements that appear in the text it's been given. It can only regurgitate facts by accident if those facts are the dominant pattern. It has no theory of reality, it has no ability to conceptualise physics. If you train it on flat earther forums, it will never nitpick the arguments made by flat earthers, it will never contradict them because their understanding of physics is flawed, because it has no understanding of physics. It will only ever accidentally respond correctly to questions about maths, because it isn't treating the numbers involved as numbers, it's treating them as text and responding with the most common number-related words in its datasets.

Even some of Data's most basic lines prove that he doesn't even slightly resemble that system. Generative AI isn't even a part of his systems, it isn't even part of how he speaks. He has a full understanding of the definitions of words, and formulates sentences by them. He extrapolates from facts based on physical laws and can, for example, give accurate estimates of speed and times of arrival. The EMH has ethical dilemmas to the point of a breakdown, because he has a theory of ethics and reality. He is programmed with a database of medical texts, but he doesn't treat them like ChatGPT does; he understands their contents and applies them practically. That's why he's sentient!

Someone replied to you saying they're more worried about generative AI developing sentience, but the thing is, the reason why your point is kinda not applicable is also why it will never happen. It can't, that's not how it works.

Which is also why so many people abhor this kind of AI generated imagery. The generative AI doesn't know who Captain Picard is, doesn't know what the Borg are, and for example in this example doesn't know why Picard has pips on his uniform or what pips are. It just has "images associated with the name Picard tend to have the pixel patterns of a caucasian oval with a red torso shaped blob with a black top and some yellow blobs along the column bit we humans call a neck," and "images associated with the keyword 'cartoon' usually have these characteristics." It's not fanart created with the skill, love for the source material, or attention to detail associated with fanart, it's slop.