I think an element of hubris in this article, and many other discussions of a superintelligent singularity - is that the preservation of humans as the dominant

I think an element of hubris in this article, and many other discussions of a superintelligent singularity - is that the preservation of humans as the dominant lifeform is an inherent good. Humans and our societal structures are incredibly flawed. We are greedy and vain and vindictive and apathetic. If an AI is created that has consciousness and is smarter and more moral than humans, it could lead our world better than we currently do. It could genetically modify us to make humankind a more ideal species. These AIs could be better humans than humans can possibly be. In 100-200 years, "kill all humans" could actually be the morally-best choice. By comparison, we could be anachronistic barbarians suitable for nothing but the novelty of viewing in a zoo. There are certainly risks from passing the baton to a different unknown future lifeform, but I don't think we can have a priori certainty that replacing humans with AI will be inherently bad.