While we don't have a definitive model for what consciousness is, there are definitely compelling arguments on the subject, and the book I linked earlier from the author clearly demonstrates that he has thought about this subject more than you have.
maybe he has in his book but he should've put them in the article, and of course we don't have a model for that, so he should've put whatever his model is for it before he started talking about it, that way we can both understand what he means. This is done in for example, cladisticss papers because there's no definition of a species that everyone agrees on. As it stands there's no way to discern what he even means thus leaving the argument incoherent.
You just keep repeating how Ted Chiang hasn't proven his case definitively, which he has not, but you've provided zero counter agument of your own.
i'm not providing a counter argument, because there's no argument to counter. I haven't thought about this because I think that consciousness is completely unimportant, I don't think it is a meaningful term, it is spiritual woohoo nonsense where we try to make ourselves special by pre-supposing we are special and that this isn't just a property of any mechanism with enough inputs that outputs a response.
the real problem I am facing with his article is that it didn't accomplish what he claimed at all, he didn't move the conversation forward and claims to have solved it definitively.