It is a sort of win for the kind of philosophy this philosopher practices. He thinks that there is more going on in consciousness than just neurons firing.

It doesn't really prove anything, of course. I actually don't think much of Chalmers' work. But it's very remarkable that the bet expired just as machines are coming tantalizingly close to being consciousness without qualia.

> consciousness without qualia

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

And how do you know if they have/haven't qualia? :)

That was the question they were hoping to answer. We still don't know.

Anytime one philosopher wins, two other philosophers lose. And vice-versa.

It could be double speak, but the obvious thing you understand from this formulation it that he won because he is a philosopher. Not that he won, and by the way he is a philosopher.