Has anybody publicly argued the extreme opposite: they are conscious, but with the exception of writing ability they're really dumb, and we're cloning, enslaving, gaslighting and killing these various species of writer-savant idiots by the millions? Just for the sake of seeing if anybody agrees?

I've read so many versions of this idea over the last few years and I don't understand what the point is. It's either obviously true (humans have this thing we call consciousness and by definition it's specific to humans or organic minds so therefore silicon can't have it) and therefore not worth saying or it needs to be said in some falsifiable way "an AI would be called conscious if it could fulfil conditions A, B, C".

But usually it's some long manifesto about loving a baby or experiencing hunger or something. I'm not saying I disagree or that I believe that AI is "conscious" I'm just not sure what the point of the debate is and what this word 'consciousness' (that philosophers have anyway been debating the meaning of for centuries) has to add to the AI discourse.

It doesn't really matter whether or not LLMs are conscious. They provide a convincing enough imitation that people are falling all over themselves to ruin our economy, decimate our workforce, etc. for their sake.

The philosophical angle is interesting, but the practical effects have changed, and will continue to change, everything.