Well, that is being doubted -- and by some of the biggest names in the field.
Namely that it isn't "statistically choosing words which probabilistically sound good together". But that doing so is not already making a consciousness (even if basic) emerge.
>it is statistically choosing words which probabilistically sound "good" together.
That when we do speak (or lie), we do something much more nuanced, and not just do a higher level equivalent of the same thing, plus have the emergent illusion of consciousness, is also an idea thrown around.
An appeal to authority is still a fallacy. We don't even have a way of proving if a person is experiencing consciousness, why would anyone expect we could agree if a machine is.
Which is neither here, nor there. I wasn't making a formal argument, I was stating a fact. Take it or leave it.