I mean, I agree that this was mostly covered in the sequences. But I also think that I disagree with the way that most people frame the debate. At least personally I have seen people who I know have read the sequences still make basic errors. So I'm just leaving this here to explain my point of view.
Intuition: On a first approximation, there is something that it is like to be us. In other words, we are beings who have qualia.
Counterintuition: In order for qualia to exist, there would need to exist entities which are private, ineffable, intrinsic, subjective and this can't be since physics is public, effable, and objective and therefore contradicts the existence of qualia.
Intuition: But even if I agree with you that qualia don't exist, there still seems to be something left unexplained.
Counterintuition: We can explain why you think there's something unexplained because we can explain the cause of your belief in qualia, and why you think they have these properties. By explaining why you believe it we have explained all there is to explain.
Intuition: But you have merely said that we could explain it. You have not have actually explained it.
Counterintuition: Even without the precise explanation, we now have a paradigm for explaining consciousness, so it is not mysterious anymore.