Apart from the article's probable origin in AI, it makes an elaborate, wordy argument about consciousness without trying to define the term. That's just as well, since consciousness is philosophy's "hard problem," meaning no one has successfully defined it in a way that leads to agreement.

Each of the article's arguments that AI "consciousness" is actually a weak imitation of the "real thing," can with equal justice be applied to people, and the classic Turing Test method to distinguish machines from people has long since lost its authority.

And a future event, one in which AI sprints past humans in its willingness to absorb printed matter (once called "reading") and then put it to use, is ... wait ... umm, never mind, the point I wanted to make is undermined by the fact that this has already happened.

Hard to keep up these days.