Here is a much more fundamental (and blindingly obvious) objection to the "zombie hypothesis".  It takes the form of a definition of a "zimbie".

"A zimbie is physically identical to a normal human being, but completely lacks Factor X."

Now, what can we say about a zimbie?  What can it do, not do, etc, that a "normal human being"* can't?

Answer: We have absolutely no idea.  Why? Because we don't know what "Factor X" is.

So if we think we know what a zombie can do, not do etc, we must already know what consciousness is - i.e. what we mean by the idea.

So the Chalmers definition of a zombie can only work (can only make sense) if we already know what consciousness is - i.e. what we mean by the idea.

Conclusion:

The zombie hypothesis is nonsense (as nonsensical as the zimbie hypothesis) unless we already know what consciousness is - i.e.what we mean by it.

(And of course if we do already know, what is the point of the zombie hypothesis?)

DA

* I leave aside the obvious objections to the idea of a "normal human being".