I've said similar things and at least among the folks I know it lands pretty well/folks seem to want to say that but couldn't find the words. In a really literal way, like the dots just weren't connecting but what they were attempting to communicate was that.

The thing I wonder is how we would tell. Since we can't leave our subjective experience and observe another, I think that means we're stuck never really knowing to a certain degree. Personally I lean toward just taking a sort of functionalist approach, what does it matter if we're ultimately fooling ourselves if the thing behaves and interacts well enough for it not to matter? Or is it the case that, on the whole, our species values itself too highly to really accept that time it outdid itself? I feel like if we avoid some sort of enormous catastrophe, what we'll end up with is some awful, cheap thing that makes you pay for a conversation devoid of product ads.

if thats true it seems unlikey that those people do either.

There's no way to tell if it does or not. And things start to get really weird if we grant them that. Because if we accept that not only nonhumans, but also non-biologicals can have a subjective inner experience, then where does it end?

And we still have no idea what exactly grants the inner conscious experience. What actually allows me to feel? I don't think it's a matter of processing power. We've had machines capable of processing faster than we can think for a long time, but to question if those were conscious would be silly.

For example, if you want to be a 100% materialist, ok, so happiness is the dopamine and serotonin reacting in my brain. But those chemical reactions only make sense in the context that I can feel them. So what actually let's me feel them?