I'm sorry, I'm finding this idea ridiculous. People want to ascribe "consciousness" or "personhood" or whatever to a thing merely because it strongly resembles or mirrors one aspect of an actual human.
To me this is not much different from ascribing personhood to e.g. an extremely lifelike sculpture of a human, perhaps one that has fooled people in a gallery.
We know that the sculpture is not made of "human parts" but of paint, alabaster, whatever. We also know that AIs are made of decidedly non-human parts, e.g. silicon. Why is there confusion on this?
To me this is not much different from ascribing personhood to e.g. an extremely lifelike sculpture of a human, perhaps one that has fooled people in a gallery.
We know that the sculpture is not made of "human parts" but of paint, alabaster, whatever. We also know that AIs are made of decidedly non-human parts, e.g. silicon. Why is there confusion on this?