This is gobbledygook.
What is?
They don't know which processes they fire and when, but they know exactly which processes they have.
Who are "they"? What processes are you referring to?
Programmers and engineers do get to see inside, and they know exactly how a computers works.
They understand how computers work but not how neural nets produce the outputs they do. Ten seconds searching the web:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3pezm/scientists-increasingly-cant-explain-how-ai-works
it's just a Chinese Room
Searle was wrong.
"The argument, to be clear, is not about whether a machine can be conscious, but about whether it (or anything else for that matter) can be shown to be conscious. It is plain that any other method of probing the occupant of a Chinese room has the same difficulties in principle as exchanging questions and answers in Chinese. It is simply not possible to divine whether a conscious agency or some clever simulation inhabits the room." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#Consciousness
Edit: interesting quote from elsewhere on that page:
'The sheer volume of the literature that has grown up around it inspired Pat Hayes to comment that the field of cognitive science ought to be redefined as "the ongoing research program of showing Searle's Chinese Room Argument to be false".' -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#History
Antiwork has only one possible meaning - the meaning associated with the movement.
I disagree.
nothing generic about it when there's a movement by that name
A word being used as a name does not imply that the word is not generic.
Explain how it is generic and not specific.
"Anti" is a generic latin prefix that designates negation or opposition. So "anti[anything]" just means "[anything] negated or opposed". The word "work" is a generic word and not a name. Therefore the word "antiwork" is a generic word and not specific. Like "unenlightened", "maladjusted" or "antirational".
It has the same name
Again, having the same name is not proof of a direct relationship.
the same aims and uses the same arguments to make its claims.
You haven't shown that this community and the anti-work movement have the same aims or make the same claims. Even if you did, that's still not proof of a direct relationship.
ROFL pot calling the kettle black!
I don't know whether current ChatGPTs or art AIs have consciousness. Neither do you.
What about it proves this community has nothing to do with work?
I haven't asserted that this community has nothing to do with work.
It is literally named "antiwork". Antiwork is a movement.
Firstly, that article uses a hyphen, "anti-work", which is not strictly the same as either the name of this community or the word you used in your link to the article.
Secondly, "antiwork" is a generic latin word. Just because this community is named using the same generic latin word as something else, doesn't imply that the two are directly related.
Lastly, even assuming for the sake of argument a movement called "antiwork", you still haven't shown that this community is about that movement. There is no mention of a "movement" in the community description and you have shown no connection. This community is not mentioned in the article you linked to.
Provide evidence.
The description of the community seems evidence enough to me.
I've provided mine, which you simply ignored.
I don't see evidence of anything. You've provided your opinions and asked lots of questions and presented some quotes. You haven't shown that anything you've presented is related to this community. For example, the community description makes no mention of a "movement" and yet you assert that this community is about a social movement.
Boring is good. I don't want to be surprised by the software I use.