Anybody objecting to that statement is just ignorant of nature and/or adheres to the quasi-religious human superiority complex.
And there are plenty of people right now that would drag us kicking and screaming back into that ignorance and suffering. This is what can make talks of AI so annoying, not that people do or don't know what AI is, they don't have the first clue of what people are beyond their anecdotal experience. They don't question their motivations. Why particular flaws they have exist, and why these flaws are shared across humanity. What the pieces look like that make them tick. So yea, when these people talk it just adds noise to the conversation.
I’m not claiming humans are morally superior in sum (there is a lot of evil as well as good.) But it’s pretty obvious that humans are the superior species evolutionarily in that we’ve essentially dominated the planet. And on some level, are beating evolution itself (by fixing genetic issues and helping the “least fit” to survive and reproduce.) And are also the only species which has doctors for other species.
All I’m trying to say: I can easily accept other species are intelligent and emotional. The fact that I can know that and accept that, to me, speaks to human “superiority.”
Does superiority matter? Not most of the time. What about when it comes down to life and death? If the choice was to keep one human alive or one theoretically more perfect AI alive? (Boil down utilitarianism into its essence.) doing the “most good” is by definition a human construct. Maybe an agent could have one. But if you don’t accept human superiority on some level, would you accept that a more perfect AI deserves to live more than you? To me, that’s the implication.
That in itself is an anthropocentric viewpoint. I'm sure an eagle watching down, seeing a human running around, could easily consider humans as quite inferior as they are so slow and restricted to 2d movement. The shark that sees a swimmer at the surface, struggling to stay afloat and unable to breathe under water may surely assert its superiority over such primitive beings. It all depends on the metric you use, and we obviously pick the metric that makes us shine.
On the moral side, few eagles, or bird species, have exterminated other species. Much less knowingly out of greed. Oh but that's different? Sure, if you ignore what makes humans look bad, morally. No surprise humans come out on top then.
> And on some level, are beating evolution itself (by fixing genetic issues and helping the “least fit” to survive and reproduce.)
That's a quite narrow viewpoint as well. Evolution is in full swing, just not in the "smarter/faster/taller/stronger" sense that a naive view of it would make you expect. "Fitness" is a concept relative to the existing conditions, and if the conditions make it easier for teenage cancer patients to reach reproductive age, then that's just less of a fitness disadvantage. Doesn't mean evolution stops.
Say we agree that a lot of things outside of humans are sentient. So what? Humans are sentient by that doesn't prevent treating them with with wars, bombs and what not. In fact trillions are spent every year on weaponry aimed squarely at the most sentient of all sentient beings.
Why would anyone worry about LLM's welfare when there's no peace movement to speak of, wars are raging as if they're normal, but hey, look the LLM is crying?
Let's fix human welfare first, then we can sit down and have a really long conversation about the feeble emotions of token generators.
Though I think that argument is not even applicable. "LLM's welfare" is a meaningless concept, unless "hammer and screwdriver welfare" also become a thing.