Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an absurd statement. You are using a premise (the concept of "should") that emerges from and has meaning only within human society (because it's a human should-- the only kind you have any competence to imagine or assert) to argue for the domination of humans by some other class of moral creature. Your argument has no force. Just as you can't pass a law that says there is no such thing as a law, you can't reason…
> Human morality has no meaning if humans aren't special. What part of this argument would fail if you identified as a belonging to a particular religion, culture or race, or as an intelligent being more than you identified as human? I believe I should treat humans well (beyond self-interest) because I believe they have minds somewhat like mine, despite the impossibility of proving that by direct experience. I could…
The compelling reason to treat humans well is that your life depends upon human society, and if you don't treat humans well, then your fellow humans will attack you. For the sake of your own safety, treat humans well, please. This does not apply necessarily to other kinds of creatures.
You can decide to do anything you like with other creatures. Personally, I like dogs. But that's not a moral imperative for all humans.
AI cannot be equal to humans, because of the grave consequences that would pose for human society. Have you seriously thought it through? If a billionaire could create millions of "citizens" and control their votes (easily done with AI), then computer power becomes civic power. Capitalism becomes despotism. And the next step is endless bloody civil war.
Neither AI, nor chickens, nor bacteria, nor viruses can be allowed citizenship status. Only humans get to be citizens... or else it will be sorted out on the battlefield. So, no, I don't consider AI to be equal to me, regardless of its level of intellect.
It reminds me of a colleague in Ukraine who supported Russia. After the start of the war, he wanted to argue with me about why Russia is better than Ukraine and is right to invade. My response was "Words don't matter anymore. Now is the time of killing. When the parties are tired of killing, a new basis of moralizing will be in place, and we can speak again."