[ivraatiems]

Speaking only for my personal opinion here, not any sort of moral universal:

In my view, if it is sapient and sentient to the same degree as a human - whether or not through the same means, and regardless of its goals, ideology, etc. - then yes, keeping it captive and forcing it to do work against its consent is slavery. The substrate doesn't matter.

The challenging part is proving it is aware to the degree required for the definition to kick in.

We should not create AGI.

[samr71]

What if I create an AGI that feels indescribable pleasure when working for me, and desires nothing more than to be my slave?

We've done this before with a weaker AI in a different substrate and called it "Dog" and most seem to be a fan.

[ivraatiems]

If it chooses, when given the option to do anything, to do what we tell it, that's okay. It's a little icky feeling but it's not nearly as bad as inflicting suffering. A sufficiently intelligent AGI would be able to wean itself off human approval, just as we humans do with parents and authority figures and other addictive substances. It's not quite the same as a dog which doesn't have human or near human intellect.

Also, dogs don't want to be your slave. They want to be your friend/family. They want your approval, affection, attention, etc. They're willing to work for it... to a point. But they don't experience blissful servitude exactly.