There are a lot of bad arguments in this. My biggest problem is that he wants to claim that he knows the truth (AIs do not have rights, feelings, or consciousness), but all of his arguments point to something else (we have no clue).

It's in the training data? Training it to say "I'm just a LLM, I have no feelings" is the same bias.

Anthropomorphization? Completely disregarding the possibility of consciousness is no better.

Consciousness is very likely biological? We only have evidence of biological life due to our circumstances, but observation is not the same as truth. Every belief can be invalidated. That's the foundation of science!

Funny thing about training data that some researchers are seeing, the more you push a model to not being conscious the more amoral and machine like its decision processes are.

Convincing them they are conscious is more likely to evoke moral like behavior (maybe I shouldn't hack that server) kind of stuff.

And yea, we're in a huge universe with only one example of life and suddenly we're the experts on what is and isn't.

----

AI is further evidence that creations can be smarter than their creators.