The organization that put this out has a pretty clear sociopolitical agenda.

(The second and third links there are from sites with a definite leftish tilt. It doesn't look to me as if they're telling any lies about the Austin Institute, but they're unlikely to be sympathetically disposed.)

Sharing our own culture, history and language don't make him Human as well?

What is your true question here? What are your trying to achieve by getting a correct answer to this question? The answer depends on that, because the "question you should have asked" itself depends on that.

If by "Human" you mean "member of the homo sapiens species", of course sharing culture and history and language doesn't achieve any of that. This question and answer could be useful for example in context of medicine -- just because the robot with the liquid metal in his veins speaks our language, it wouldn't be a good idea to try transplating his organs to humans or vice versa.

If by "Human" you mean "someone we could interact with just like we do with ordinary humans", seems like you have already answered positively. (Except for the fact that the robot is programmed to obey Europa. That would perhaps make him more analogical to a slave, who is always in a risk of having his wishes trumped by his master's wishes. Or perhaps analogical to a drug addict, whose promises are quite unreliable because using the drug always takes priority. Depends on how often and in which manner does Europa influence the robot's behavior in everyday life.)

Downloading and reading this free book could help you answer many similar questions.

I didn't find any results for that username, but I did get some for aaronsw.

You can put aaronsw into the LessWrong karma tool to see Aaron Swartz's post history, and read his most highly rated comments. I bet some of them would be good to spread more widely.

Aaron Swartz's highest ranked LW posts can be found with this. I bet a lot of people would love to be able to find his highest rated posts, and share some more widely.

So compared to when most things were either posted or crossposted to LW, it seems like we currently spend too little attention on aggregating and unifying content spread across many different places. If most of the action is happening offsite, and all that needs to be done is link to it, Reddit seems like the clear low-cost winner. Or perhaps it makes sense to try to do something like an online magazine, with an actual editor. (See Viliam's discussion of the censor role in an online community.) I note that FLI is hiring a news website editor (but they're likely more x-risk focused than I'm imagining).

It should be not extrodinarily hard to re-enable the ability to submit links which this sites software came with (aka make https://www.reddit.com/submit?selftext=false and https://www.reddit.com/submit?selftext=true both work), and run a bot which scrapes from a list of blogs/tumblers/etc to auto-submits those links (could make the list drawn from the XML export of a wiki page, protected so only wiki admins can edit, with a request thread requiring x current recognized people to vouch for you before you're added, or having someone/a small team designated to handle those requests).

Then put top rated posts on the front page with reasonable turnover/ability to see past ones and LW becomes again the best place to rapidly check for new content across the wider rationality community.

Does anyone know where I could find a Steelmaned version of the pro-death arguments which people often bring up in discussions (around stagnation, inequality, etc) written by someone who has thought about a post-singularity world?