There is no objective external way to determine if an entity experiences qualia at all. From outside we can only consider behaviour, not subjective experience.

Personally I can't be sure that anyone else experiences qualia. It seems like a reasonable assumption, but I'm basing that on a mapping from my own experiences to those of others.

If everyone else was a highly sophisticated automaton I wouldn't know.

This creates a paradox. The only way to prove qualia exist would be to invent an objective qualia-ometer which would somehow measure subjective experience.

But of course my experience of the qualia-ometer would also be subjective, so the existence of qualia in others cannot be proven objectively.

You can imagine some kind of meta-technology which allowed qualia to be shared, so everyone could experience everyone else's experiences.

Not even that would be absolute proof because experience would still be subjective.

The point being - assuming you can throw cycles at this is looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope. It doesn't work like that because it can't work like that.

It's a much harder problem. (Which could be why it's called the Hard Problem.)

Worse, it just highlights that all of our experiences are qualia. There is nothing objective about anything we experience. What we think of as objective experience is really just stable shared experience.

You can make an argument that the more complicated, stable, surprising, and shared experience is, the more likely it is to be objective.

That's sort-of plausible and possibly a good rule of thumb. But it still doesn't really make the problem go away.