Yes, because we all know that humans care so much about the suffering of others: from fellow humans dying right now pointless deaths (poverty, aberrant laws, malevolent leaders, etc.) to the billions [1] of animals we are killing each year for food (I still eat meat, no innocence here). So, not really sure what the article argues: no conscious AI because there will be suffering but we don't care about suffering?
If we will be able to spawn an agent in a household humanoid robot and let them do the chores around the house, will we do it, even if it will imply killing that agent whenever it powers down? You betcha. Should we do it? Sure, just the fact that billions of hours of pointless, tiresome human activity will be freed to do whatever is enough of an incentive.
Will the artificial agents replace the human species? One can certainly hope so. First, not so great of a species, as mentioned. Secondly, the universe is large and the humans are squishy, something else must go on eventually.
There, all the moral qualms solved. Now, let's go back to figure out how to actually engineer an artificial agent, in silico, or perhaps easier, in vivo [2].
[2] "This Ciliate Is About to Die", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibpdNqrtar0