You don't have a definition of consciousness, and then go about determining what has consciousness based on "seems most likely" and "fair to assume", admitting

You don't have a definition of consciousness, and then go about determining what has consciousness based on "seems most likely" and "fair to assume", admitting it is the "easy way out", then object to other people calling LLMs potentially 'conscious' just because their word overlaps with yours? That's sloppy reasoning at the very least. What's your point unless you want some kind of authoritarian last say about how a particular word ('consciousness') is being used in philosophical discussions?