Not to rehash a stale debate, but that’s not my position at all. I do believe consciousness emerges from a nonconscious fundamental stratum—in fact, I’ve published a theory detailing how it does so (which didn’t really arouse much interest here). My point to you was merely that emergence isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card to get anything to come from anything else—it’s not a magic wand you can wave to get water to break from bare rock. You need the right sort of ingredients, and you need an account of how the combination of those ingredients makes it so that the property under discussion emerges—otherwise, you’re merely stating an article of faith, that it just needs those ingredients and nothing else.
People used to believe that life could be spontaneously generated from dead matter. Fleas could come from dust; maggots from dead flesh; geese grew on trees (OK, so the latter isn’t exactly from nonliving matter, I just love the image). You might say, that’s perfectly reasonable: those living beings just emerge. But what have you actually said by that? Without any mechanism, nothing of any content whatsoever—you’ve merely reformulated the original belief. It doesn’t add anything, explain anything, or give anybody any reason to believe the claim.
Yeah, this has no grounding in any form of panpsychism anybody actually defends. The object of panpsychism is phenomenal consciousness, which has nothing to do with Jeopardy or chess-playing.
It works just as well the other way around: computer scientists routinely opine about philosophical topics, such as what is or isn’t conscious or sentient—but, not typically being experts on the matter, get things often wrong. Which isn’t really a problem—after all, it’s not their working area—but one ought to expect a bit more recognition of the expertise of those whose working area it is.