I'm going to assume you're expecting this, so here I am :)

"I don’t know whether artificial consciousness is possible or not because I don’t know how consciousness has come to exist."

You don't need to, because the argument is based upon the requirements of consciousness, and not the explicit nature of consciousness itself. This was addressed in section: Lack of explanatory power.

"Hsing cherry picks components of the definitions from the sources he uses."

Where is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry, or Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on the term "intelligence"? Okay, I'll give people two minutes to look this up and respond...

"he never explains how meaning ties to the definitions he uses to define consciousness at the beginning of the article"

Those are requirements (necessary conditions) of consciousness, not definitions...........

As for the connection between meaning and consciousness, It's right there near the beginning of the article:

"Meaning is a mental connection between something (concrete or abstract) and a conscious experience."

"there are a multiplicity of philosophical theories about consciousness, intentionality, and qualia. All of which means that we don’t know how any of these things come about."

...and absolutely none of those theories matter, because my argument is based upon the principles that were being shown (e.g. principle of noncontradiction in that there are no such things as "design without design" and "programming without programming," among others) and not any sort of theoretical gymnastics. Could you imagine trying to prove or disprove a theory with yet another theory? That'd be like trying to hit a sandcastle with a small ball of sand. This lack of theoretics, as well as the absence of the need for theory, was also addressed in section: Lack of explanatory power.

As long as one acknowledges the requirements of consciousness I've put forward, there's no need for what you've described. It's extraneous and besides the point for me to cough up another theory here.

Your criticism isn't off to a good start here. I'm going to let you address these counterpoints before I move on to the rest... but there really isn't much more to the rest. I think I've just about covered the whole thing.