Well, pay attention to the thread, then, because the thread is the problem. There are any number of people - and they tend to be rich and powerful - who are more concerned with the potential rights of a hypothetical artificial intelligence than they are with the actual humans whose rights are being curtailed by actual artificial intelligence.

A Google researcher was convinced his fishing lure was a fish and he swallowed it. This caused the press to do "but he works at Google, obviously fishing lures are fish" which has caused a broad swath of the population to lose track of the tundra becoming the tropics because Skynet is more evocative.

We have a very real, very quantifiable problem in front of us: rich people who think computer programs deserve more rights than people or animals. And their first and only move is to wave their hands and call it unquantifiable. They're not wrong? But they're arguing a lack of quantifiability in the face of something we have quantified since the invention of fire. The philosophizing does not solve the problem, it argues the problem unsolvable, therefore we win because we own software firms.

I can't think of a single industry that has professed so much helplessness in the face of externalities. It's as if the automotive industry argued it was impossible to use unleaded gasoline, rather than simply pleading expense.