There is never a popular press article about how computers may never do consciousness, at least by any current definition of "computer,"
If you look up my previous posts here on AI, you'll note that I'm pretty critical of the kind of press given to AI as well. And I think that we're pretty far off from a model of computing that will effectively rival the kind of learning the brain does.
But even I think your claim here is asking the wrong question. If "consciousness" can be created using machines, it will be an "emergent phenomenon," which means the kind of complexity that will appear may be sudden and unpredictable compared to the lower-level construction.
nor an article about how there are things human consciousness can do which no deterministic process can more than imperfectly mimic.
What would be the point of such articles? How could you ever prove such a claim? Can you provide some examples of "things human consciousness can do which no CONCEIVABLE deterministic process can more than imperfectly mimic"?
And if you think you can, I really suggest you read up on emergent phenomena in some detail, including philosophers who have thought greatly about the kinds of ontological and epistemological questions you're posing. These are debates which go back thousands of years. But I'd personally suggest looking at the philosopher Daniel Dennett's work for some sophisticated discussion of how apparent macroscopic "freedom" can emerge from "deterministic" microscopic processes.
In the process of asking what people really mean by terms like "free will" and such, you end up realizing that microscopic determinism isn't so "scary" after all.
And isn't that what your post is really about? You don't want to believe that human consciousness is determined in any way, right? I'm not saying you have to accept Dennett or other philosophers' ideas about these issues, but they are worth exploring.
Both of these positions are viable, and embraced by experts in various fields.
Yes, and religious belief in all sorts of supernatural and mystical phenomena is "embraced by experts in various fields" as well. The idea that human "consciousness" is fundamentally tied up with this kind of mystical belief in a separate "soul" or something. But there's no empirical evidence why consciousness shouldn't be able to be explained by laws of nature.
By all current evidence, they may prove right.
By all current evidence 200 years ago, humans would never be able to fly.
But it doesn't make for a hero story to write about someone who argues for these positions.
That's because your two positions amount to, "Uh... gee, well, there are some things that can't be explained scientifically yet." That's not very interesting, and historical precedent says that most of the time people said stuff was inexplicable or impossible... later people managed to explain or do it. (Unless it was actually against some inherent law of nature -- is that, by chance, what you're claiming to know? That some "consciousness" processes are inherently non-deterministic according to a fundamental law of nature? If so, that sounds suspiciously mystical and/or religious.)
"Discovering" that consciousness either essentially does nothing or that some computer advance is just about to do consciousness (or both!) is a "great" story. Editors like it. The public is impressed by the "brilliant" "counter-intuitive" revelation.
Just because something is "intuitive" does NOT mean it's right. In fact, humans have a well-known propensity and actually a fundamental cognitive bias to believe that order (and "meaning") is in randomness. Humans were stupid enough to be fooled into thinking ELIZA exhibited consciousness and was not simply deterministic. Human consciousness -- whatever it is caused by -- involves many orders of magnitude more complexity than ELIZA. Yet you somehow think we should be able to trust our "intuitive" instinct that we can just "know" what human cognitive processes are non-deterministic and necessary for consciousness.
(By the way -- I'm NOT saying that your perspective is impossible, just as I would not say many people who have religious beliefs are believing in things that are impossible. But the idea that consciousness is non-deterministic is a similar belief... there's just no way to come close to "proving" that right now, and it seems to violate the idea that most scientists assume where we try to natural, logical explanations first.)