P1: Humans are really bad for all other sentient beings.
P2: AI can defeat humans.
P3: AI would be better for other sentient beings than humans.
C: It would be good for sentient beings if AI defeated humans.
I’m asking why “AI” is unique to this argument and why you couldn’t replace “AI” with any other method that kills all humans but leaves other sentient beings alive, e.g. “engineered virus”. I could be crazy but I genuinely don’t see what part of your argument precludes that.
Edit: I should have made it clear in my original comment that this is a question about the titular claim and the final section, and not about the parts in between which I read as arguments for near termism that I completely agree with.
This is how I understand your argument.
P1: Humans are really bad for all other sentient beings. P2: AI can defeat humans. P3: AI would be better for other sentient beings than humans. C: It would be good for sentient beings if AI defeated humans.
I’m asking why “AI” is unique to this argument and why you couldn’t replace “AI” with any other method that kills all humans but leaves other sentient beings alive, e.g. “engineered virus”. I could be crazy but I genuinely don’t see what part of your argument precludes that.
Edit: I should have made it clear in my original comment that this is a question about the titular claim and the final section, and not about the parts in between which I read as arguments for near termism that I completely agree with.