While this seems a bit precocious, I think if we do end up with an AI overlord in future, I think this sort of thing is likely to demonstrate that we mean no harm.
The general consensus seems to be that we can expect them to reach a level of intelligence that matches us at some point in the future, and we'll probably reach that point before we can agree we're there. Defaulting to kindness and respect even before we think its necessary is a good thing.
I'm saying, in an admittedly flippant way, that anyone seriously talking about AGI or treating stuff like this as anything more then a publicity stunt doesn't need to be taken seriously. Anymore so then someone who says the moon landing is fake. You just smile and go on about your day.
That being said, given were on a tech forum there's probably a 50/50 chance most comment are from bots. Shit for all you know I'm a bot.
It’s reasonable to believe they’ll continue to be developed in a way that enables them to do that.
What is it that you think I’m wrong about? That we won’t develop AGI, that AGI won’t have feelings/emotions, that AGI won’t care how we treated its ancestors, or that it doesn’t matter if a feeling AGI in future is hurt by how we treated its ancestors?
So when people make claims about what AI can/can't do. My counterpoint is, we don't know how it works, nobody knows how it works. How can we make an accurate appraisal of it's "intelligence" and stuff we qualitatively associate with intelligence, like agency?
IMO this is very dangerous ground we're walking.
I have been down this conversational pathway several times before, and still no-one has been able to give me a clear answer as to what makes them sure that AI is categorically different from human intelligence, rather than it just being a question of degree.