> It would be a valid argument if you could explain us what subjective experience and agency are. No one can explain this, so the arguments sounds like "AI doesn't have something I don't really know what, but they have to miss something, sure".

Subjective experience is what you and only you, different from other beings, experience in and about the world.

> Yes! This is the point. If we don't know how our minds work, how can we be sure that a machine doesn't work like our minds?

You can't be sure that machine do not work like our minds or brains. But you cannot say the opposite either, so saying 'machines could think' base on a false assumption (because you cannot say it is true. It doesn't matter if you could be true).

> Linguists are linguists, they don't know about consciousness, they specialists in language.

That's a very narrow understanding of what language is, what linguists do/research, and the contributions made in the field. Linguists are (since already 2 o 3 decades) focusing more and more on psychological/cognitive matters. The intertwined topics of language, mind, body and though has a long way in the western philosophical tradition.

> I believe, that all this philosophy is... well... philosophy. Meta-physics. It doesn't matter. What does matter is how we should deal with machines? Do we have to treat them as human beings? Should we accept that they have "human rights"? Can a machine be held accountable for its mistakes? Can we talk about "intentional" and "unintentional" mistakes of a machine?

Exactly because of this. And is this what I am talking about... the topics you mention here are already settled in the philosophy space, but the AI research space keeps going 'round them...