TFA's argument is that you don't know jack if you're not a neuroscientist. This is fallacious and reeks of somebody trying to inflate the value of their profession.
AIs are, at best, philosophical zombies. To an observer it may appear intelligent enough to be conscious but it ultimately it is still just a machine.
There are a lot of things that are not known or well-understood about the human body. The same cannot be said about computers, which are very well understood. A computer is effectively just layers upon layers upon layers of abstraction, and when you get the near the bottom all you have is simple digital logic, and when you get below that you have transistors and semiconductor electronics. It's absolutely ridiculous to think a computer has some sort of "subjective experience", "sentience" or "consciousness" just because the uppermost layers of abstraction are doing something impressive.
AIs are, at best, philosophical zombies. To an observer it may appear intelligent enough to be conscious but it ultimately it is still just a machine.
There are a lot of things that are not known or well-understood about the human body. The same cannot be said about computers, which are very well understood. A computer is effectively just layers upon layers upon layers of abstraction, and when you get the near the bottom all you have is simple digital logic, and when you get below that you have transistors and semiconductor electronics. It's absolutely ridiculous to think a computer has some sort of "subjective experience", "sentience" or "consciousness" just because the uppermost layers of abstraction are doing something impressive.