Sherry Turkle in particular and Kahneman and Tversky in general determined that 80% of our communication is non-verbal (and 60% of it is unspoken). The dearth of non-vocal, non-language cues in textual communication is filled in by expectation, and that expectation is cultural. The formality of any written communication used to be inversely proportional to the familiarity of the conversants; since the advent of the Internet, the formality of any written communication has mostly been a stand-in for the communicants' desired perception. Nonetheless, 80% of our impression of any online interaction comes from our own Id, nowhere else.

We give any random humanoid we meet the benefit of the doubt because of these nonverbal cues, which are entirely absent in textual communication. If we provide that context the illusion collapses - put a speaker on anything from Boston Dynamics and the best voice synthesizer on the market will not convince a single human that ChatGPT is like them.

Doing so, in fact, thrusts the speaker deep into the uncanny valley. This is pretty much the plot-line of every mainstream news investigation into ChatGPT, no matter how shallow: (1) start talking to the chatbot (2) be impressed by how lifelike it is (3) catch it in a lie (4) watch it double-down and get weird (5) recoil in horror. And unless you can confidently exclude 3, 4, and 5 from every interaction, the net experience of normies with AI is going to be abysmal; people hated Clippy, they didn't fear it.

I personally feel that the whole "consciousness" canard is a red herring: "what tricks does it have to perform for us to give it rights." There are billions of certified humans walking the earth who aren't guaranteed any particular rights so it really just becomes an argument for the TESCRealists to favor their toys over actual human beings.