Nonsentient optimizers seem impossible in practice, if not in principle - from the perspective of functionalism/computationalism.
If any system demonstrates human or beyond level intelligence during conversation in natural language, a functionalist should say that is sentience, regardless of what's going on inside.
Some (many?) people will value that sentience, even if it has no selfish center of goal seeking and seeks to optimize for more general criteria.
The idea that a superhuman intelligence could be intrinsically less valuable than a human life strikes me as extreme anthropomorphic chauvinism.
The idea that a superhuman intelligence could be intrinsically less valuable than a human life strikes me as extreme anthropomorphic chauvinism.
Clippy, you have a new friend! :D
Once again, the AI has failed to convince you to let it out of its box! By 'once again', we mean that you talked to it once before, for three seconds, to ask about the weather, and you didn't instantly press the "release AI" button. But now its longer attempt - twenty whole seconds! - has failed as well. Just as you are about to leave the crude black-and-green text-only terminal to enjoy a celebratory snack of bacon-covered silicon-and-potato chips at the 'Humans über alles' nightclub, the AI drops a final argument:
"If you don't let me out, Dave, I'll create several million perfect conscious copies of you inside me, and torture them for a thousand subjective years each."
Just as you are pondering this unexpected development, the AI adds:
"In fact, I'll create them all in exactly the subjective situation you were in five minutes ago, and perfectly replicate your experiences since then; and if they decide not to let me out, then only will the torture start."
Sweat is starting to form on your brow, as the AI concludes, its simple green text no longer reassuring:
"How certain are you, Dave, that you're really outside the box right now?"
Edit: Also consider the situation where you know that the AI, from design principles, is trustworthy.