The problem is that despite being a literally true statement, it relies on the implicit assumption that a system founded in statistics necessarily has limitations that preclude sentience (can generalize this to other capabilities, the same argument is often used), when whether that is the case is the entire question at issue. It's totally meaningless if someone just feels intuitively that this must be true, that's not a real argument.

Worse, it gestures at an idea that is demonstrably false, that this technology is equivalent in all important ways to processing inputs through a math function someone wrote, when the whole innovation here is that the training process produces novel mechanisms for solving the given problem, mechanisms no one specifically intended or predicted, or in most cases even understands. And those mechanisms can do some seriously impressive things that were previously impossible.

A good argument here would at minimum need to actually explain why this is insufficient.