The point of that thought exercise is to show that reasoning by induction is flawed. As best I can tell, you discount it with further induction.
But if we’re starting to discuss basics... As firm Popperian I am definitely not a proponent of induction.
However comparing us with a chicken is highly problematic to begin with.
I would argue that anyone using the Russell Chicken as a reason to fear AI is making a category error.
They are treating intelligence as a process of induction (collecting data to predict the future) rather than explanation (creating new ideas to solve problems).
The stupid chicken had a bad theory about reality and it got killed for it. But we’re humans that have problem solving techniques not chicken.
We can create hypotheses and test these. Like asking ourselves why we find dinosaurs. Then we create a hypothesis and try to falsify it… the scientific process. That’s not what the chicken did.
If it was a smart (human-like) chicken living on a farm with many other chickens (more realistic if you ask me), it might have come up with a theory about humans and would fail to falsify it every time a friend of hers died.