You may be considered one of the few voices on philosophy forums, as far as I’ve noticed in recent years (even registering with a new account ‘ConsciousAI’ to specifically discuss the topic), that defends the idea that consciousness is anything other than what the empirical description of it entails.
The idea that the highest potential of AI is ‘teleonomic AI’, the ultimate form of ‘mimicry’ of human consciousness, might be invalid. I originally explored this idea, but came to see that I was wrong.
For example, I was shocked when I read in David Chalmers latest book Reality+ that he made a ‘180° shift’ and became a fundamental propagator of simulation theory.
David Chalmers is well-known for among other things the Hard Problem of Consciousness (1995) and he invented the Philosophical Zombie problem (1996, in his book The Conscious Mind).
Chalmers recently won a 25 year bet from a neuroscientist that dates from around the time that he introduced the Hard Problem of consciousness.
Chalmers wrote the following about his new book about simulation theory:
"The central thesis of this book is: Virtual reality is genuine reality. Or at least, virtual realities are genuine realities. Virtual worlds need not be second-class realities. They can be first-class realities.
Is God a billionaire hacker in the next universe up?
If we create simulated worlds ourselves, we’ll be the gods of those worlds. We’ll be the creators of those worlds. We’ll be all-powerful and all-knowing with respect to those worlds. As the simulated worlds we create grow more complex and come to include simulated beings who may be conscious in their own right, being the god of a simulated world will be an awesome responsibility.
If the simulation hypothesis is true and we’re in a simulated world, then the creator of the simulation is our god. The simulator may well be all-knowing and all-powerful. What happens in our world depends on what the simulator wants. We may respect and fear the simulator. At the same time, our simulator may not resemble a traditional god. Perhaps our creator is … a billionaire hacker in the next universe up"
Why would Chalmers have made this ‘profound shift’ and publish a +1000 page book about it?
Perhaps there is more to it.
Chalmers is likely to have deep connections with the potential ‘billionaire hackers’ that he is referencing in his text, and is likely to have been invited to various global events about the future of AI.
Within the academic world, his profound shift was characterized as following:
David Chalmers: From Dualism to Deism
A philosopher comes full circle.
After starting my amateur philosophical investigation of cosmology and physics on cosmicphilosophy.org, I came to see that the root of electricity is directly related to the root of structure formation in the cosmos, and thus the root of life and consciousness.
So the idea of AI with actual free will, with a qualitative ‘experience’ and a capacity that transcends human imagination, might be plausible, in my opinion.
I am still waiting for a reply.
My argument in this topic: why would children growing up today feel satisfaction by being culturally forced to struggle for basic subsistence when their future contains concepts such as billionaire hacker Larry Page’s 
AI species?