This is a great post.
Personally, I am most interested in this topic:
AS advocacy is a form of moral circle expansion (MCE), an increase in the number of beings given moral consideration, such as legal protection. Therefore, questions that affect the prioritization of MCE could also affect the prioritization of AS.
Personally, I believe that until we have moral acceptance and genuine legal protections for sentient non-human animals, there will be significant barriers for AS. I also believe that adding non-human animals to the moral circle can and should be a near-term achievement.
I have a few thoughts...
a) Would human extinction due to an extraterrestrial be a good thing? That depends on the morality of the ET and the state of humanity at the time. I'd say the same applies to AI. It depends on the morality of the AI and the state of humanity at the time.
b) AI researcher Jeff Hawkins makes the argument that AI, if we achieve it, will emulate the human neocortex but will not include the "old brain" that govern our visceral and emotional drives. From that perspective, an AI may not have moral status as it will not have the "survival instinct" that biological intelligence has, which means it will not fear death or feel emotional pain and suffering in the way humans do.
c) I just read a fun sci-fi fable here on the forum that makes the argument that humans being replaced by AI could be a good thing.
I like this piece. I am curious why it it is a trick that "cruel" men play. Is it cruel to humanize the suffering with a relatable instance rather than a faceless ocean of suffering? I am not arguing the point. I am unsure which side I believe. But I do know many people who try to raise awareness of suffering by humanizing singular instances. Does that do more harm than good?