My own view is probably atypical among dualists and idealists, and hard to explain. I'll just state what I think is true, without justifying why I think these things are true or compatible with each other. I think:

- Most or all of what makes us human, like love, pain, sense of belonging, seeing, hearing, find almost all of their explanation in the physical. I include even things like thinking, reasoning, beliefs, and so on, as finding almost all their explanation in the brain.

- The experiential/phenomenological side of these things (love, pain, sense of belonging, seeing, hearing, etc) are non-physical mental/consciousness things. Everything else besides the phenomenology finds its explanation in our brains (or some wider physical states than just the brain).

- I am not surprised that LLM's could be as powerful as they are today (though I am surprised that I was alive to see that), and I can see them getting better.

- The foundation of reality is ultimately mental/consciousness and not physical, and the physical (to use a philosophical term) supervenes on the mental.

Regarding definition of consciousness: I'm not so bothered with how we define words. I think a lot of philosophy is pointless arguing that amounts to no more than people disagreeing about how we should define a word. I see no point in that. Instead, let's just stipulate what we mean by a word, and get on with the meat of the discussion. In this particular instance, when I talk about consciousness, I'm talking about the thing that the 'hard problem of consciousness' is talking about. I'm not talking about, e.g., consciousness in the sense of wakefulness (where being asleep or under a general anaesthetic would count as unconscious).