I haven't even argued that AI is concious, I have said that we do not understand consciousness enough to define it. You have completely missed the point. This is Dunning-Kruger at its peak. You are vastly oversimplifying things, at what size of brain is an animal considered conscious or capable of thought? Define thought. We don't even have a solid understanding of life, much less thoughts. Yes we have a word definition, no we do not know where the line begins and ends. It is a philosophical question that remains unanswered.

This definition is already making so many assumptions and over simplifications. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thought

We understand that the brain is what gives us our cognition, we understand that the brain is made up of chemical and electrical signals. We are not special.

Discussing the consciousness of neural networks is NOT being pro-AI. I'd say it's even the opposite, as it displays the danger of such a technology.

Most of the words in the definition have multiple interpretations, it is not as easy as you wish it would be.

Finally, we do NOT at all know how trained neural networks work. We know how training and inference work. We can read the neurons, but the shear size of weights make it a rather impenetrable black box we have to study, partially, to understand the goals of the emergent sub networks.