> However, if we hold the latter, manufacturing a “true” artificial consciousness may be unachievable using the means we employ (it might be just a philosophical zombie).
Coincidentally, this is why I'm generally wary of this line of thinking. It does remind me of Descartes, who was arguing that animals couldn't "really" feel pain (and thus e.g. vivisection is perfectly ethical): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes#On_animals
I may believe that an animal (or indeed another person) has consciousness and can suffer because they are sufficiently similar to me in how they came about to exist, but also not believe that about a constructed entity that lacks any such similarities, regardless of what it outputs—those two views are not in conflict.
I do share your worry that rejecting the latter can lead to rejecting the former in some cases, however.
Coincidentally, this is why I'm generally wary of this line of thinking. It does remind me of Descartes, who was arguing that animals couldn't "really" feel pain (and thus e.g. vivisection is perfectly ethical): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes#On_animals