[animal531]

I agree with true AI possibly being extremely non-human, but according to your examples that could be its most important feature. Us humans don't have the mental capacity to link child sweatshops to our limited world view, but an AI might, exactly because it's not limited by biology.

And even that also depends on upbringing. Our super intelligent spider who's been raised well (and associates with humans) should be friendlier than say a super intelligent dog who doesn't associate with humans.

Basically for me it comes down to how/if it associates with us. If so (or not), what does it stand to gain from exploiting us?

[jodrellblank]

You're arguing that it will act like us because it will be intelligent.

That doesn't hold. Dogs have millions of years of evolution of being pack mammals with leaders, spiders don't.

We are superintelligent compared to spiders, we don't care about what spiders care about just because we grow up with spiders nearby. We still kill them, wreck their habitats, and ignore them.

We don't exploit them. They're too irrelevant to be exploitable. We bulldoze them away and put buildings millions of times bigger than them on top.

A superintelligence which is amoral won't care about us just from being near us, like we don't care about wrapping wasps in silk just from being near spiders. We can't associate with spiders, an AI won't automatically be able, willing or interested in associating with us - unless we code that in. It won't exploit us, it will go about its goals without considering us as anything special or interesting.