Nuts.
You're saying the discovery that humans can process language without being conscious "couldn't possibly" inform the debate about LLMs? When that debate is literal predicated on the assumption that the ability to process language implies consciousness?
This is a counter example to the fundamental assumption of that argument. Without that, you are left with something like "if we ignore their ability to to process language, do we have any reason to suppose that LLMs (as opposed to, say, a spread sheet or stats package) are conscious?"
Sorry to hear that someone rudely thinks that basic logic is "Nuts".
> When that debate is literal (sic) predicated on the assumption that the ability to process language implies consciousness?
This is an incoherent claim. Debates are between people with differing claims and often differing assumptions; they aren't "predicated" on some assumption or another--that's a category mistake.
Someone can easily argue that LLMs are conscious (or have qualia--that was the disputed claim, and they aren't the same thing) without the strong claim that the ability to process language entails consciousness ... perhaps it is the processing of language together with other features that they think indicates consciousness. For instance, George Lemoine and Richard Dawkins didn't base their judgments on consciousness on such an entailment, but rather on the specifics of what the LLMs said to them.
I won't respond about this again.