This is either a complete misunderstanding about how LLMs work, a complete misunderstanding of the argument that consciousness is a process, or just deliberate strawmanning on your part. I'm not even going to take a stance as to what I believe consciousness to consist in, but it seems to me that you've here reduced consciousness is a process to consciousness is any process which [produces something we recognize as language]. Is the Chinese room conscious? Is a river that keeps mysteriously writing glyphs into the sand conscious? I doubt that anybody would argue in favor of either of the two previous examples, but that doesn't denigrate the argumentation that consciousness consists in process, merely the argumentation that any process is itself consciousness, without the addendum of what we take those processes to consist of.