If I call a lightbulb an artificial star, the onus is on me to show the behavior under the hood is star like, not just to point at the light and say “you must see it’s a a star since it’s emitting light!”.
Sorry, no. The only thing it requires you to buy is basic logic. If you argue that B is true because of A, the fact that A is false invalidates your argument (I repeat: not B but your argument). There is no question about it.
To say the same process is occurring with all this different is bizarre, and that is why the OP is right about which direction the argument of similarity has meaning.
You don’t disagree that our only pre-LLM exemplars of conscious thinking systems is from biology right?
If you’re introducing a new member, you have to compare it across all levels before making a similarity claim. It’s the height of ridiculousness to think otherwise.