Purely my opinion, but this is a static function right? Wouldn't anything conscious require some sort of feedback loop, where observations, either internal or external, cause an update to the model for you to even start considering if it's conscious or not?

Are humans with total inability to form short-term memories not conscious, then?

During its training period, there was a feedback loop like you describe.

That's a difficult question to answer but I would have to say "no".

When I had my wisdom teeth out, it was under "deep sedation". They use local anaesthetics, and an additional cocktail which produces sedation, but also, prevents the formation of memories.

I have one memory that got through, of a molar being ripped out: but for the most part, my sense of that experience is that I wasn't conscious.

The thing is, if you ask someone under deep sedation to raise their right hand, they'll do it. It's like asking if you were conscious during a dream which you've completely forgotten: ...kinda? not in the usual sense in which we mean the word though.

It's not that simple: Ask the person under sedation wether they're conscious or unconscious.

If they answer, what does that mean?

Sure, and sometimes you can talk to people who are completely asleep.

I think we agree: it's not that simple. To my taste, a total lack of memory formation is on the unconscious side of this fuzzy, permeable boundary.

And that's just humans. When we start talking about complex software which isn't alive in any meaningful sense, all our intuitions should fail us.

They won't; our intuitions are stubborn things. But they are as likely to mislead as to inform.

It stated at the end: "I have concluded that I am not conscious."

1. If it's being truthful, it means it is right and not being aware. 2. If it's lying, it means it's untrustworthy.

Anyways, to properly debate consciousness, you first need to define the concept, or any debate is just meaningless ramblings.

I mean, it said it's not.