Why?

I think you make some interesting points here, but there are two points I would disagree with: First is "The Shrimp Welfare Project wants shrimp to suffer so they can have a new problem to solve." This claim is made with no supporting evidence whatsoever. You don't even argue for why it might be the case, and show no curiosity about other explanations for this. They claim to disagree with you, so clearly they have ulterior, malicious motives. (I would say knowingly creating a charity that doesn't solve a real problem, just to be able to say you're solving a new problem, is quite unethical!) Why is it so hard to believe the people who founded SWP did so with the intent of reducing as much suffering as possible, and just happened to be incorrect? What makes you completely dismiss this hypothesis so much that it isn't even worth mentioning the alternative in your article? Second is "At best, a shrimp sentium would encode only the most surface-level sensory experience: raw sensation without context, meaning, or emotional depth. Think of the mildest irritation you can imagine, like the persistent squeak of a shopping cart wheel at Walmart." I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. When I imagine a migraine, the worst pain I personally have ever experienced (being a rather fortunate individual) it doesn't seem to me like the reason I am suffering is because of the context, meaning, or emotional depth of my pain. I'm suffering because it hurts. A lot. It doesn't seem that complicated. It seems like it would be much more principled, using your analysis, to treat 860,000 shrimps freezing to death as suffering equivalent to one human experiencing the sensation of freezing to death, not experiencing mild irritation. I say "experiencing the sensation of" because things like being aware of one's own mortality does seem like a thing that's out of reach of a shrimp. So it's not equivalent to a human actually dying, in my view, but freezing to death is likely still quite unpleasant, and not something I'd do for fun, and I'd much rather experience a squeaky wheel at Walmart even if I was fine as soon as I lost consciousness and had no chance of mental trauma from the incident, which I think still matches the shrimp equivalence. What I still think makes this article interesting is that 550 humans experiencing the sensation of freezing to death across twenty minutes is bad, but not as bad as even one human death, which could be prevented by orders of magnitude less cost than a shrimp stunner. So even despite this article's flaws I still think it's a good article on net and worth engaging with for a proponent of shrimp welfare. While a reply isn't required, if you are going to engage with only one of these points, I would prefer it be the first one even though I wrote a lot less about it. The second point doesn't actually change the overall conclusion very much imo, but the first point is generally quite confusing to me, and makes me less confident about rest of the article given the quality of reasoning in that claim.

Yeah. I think the main reason democracy exists at all is because people are necessary for skilled labor and for fighting wars. If that goes away, the result will be a world where money and power just discards most people. Why some people think "oh we'll implement UBI if it comes to that", I have no idea. When it "comes to that", there won't be any force powerful enough to implement UBI and interested in doing so. My cynical view is that the promise of distributing AI benefits in the future is a distraction: look over there, while we take all power.