On the plus side, people make up the organization and when they eventually grow fed up with the dystopia, they leave with their acquired knowledge and make their own thing. So dystopias aren't stable in the long term.
That seems to rely on the assumption that human input is required to keep the dystopia going. Maybe I watched too much sci-fi, but the more pessimistic view is that the AI dystopia will be self-sustaining and couldn't be overcome without the concerted use of force by humans. But we humans aren't that good in even agreeing on common goals, let alone exerting continuous effort to achieve them. And most likely, by the time we start to even think of organizing, the AI dystopia will be conducting effective psychological warfare (using social media bots etc.) to pit us against each other even more.
I feel vaguely annoyed, I think it's because it took a lot of time to read through that, and it amounts to "bad to put child in solitary confinement to keep whole society happy."
What does a simplistic moral set piece about the abhorrence of sacrificing the good of one for the good of many have to do with (check notes) Facebook? Even as vague hand-wavey criticism, wouldn't Facebook would be the inverse?
You have every right to take what you like from it, but I'd suggest that perhaps you're not seeing what others are if all you get is a morality play. As one example, maybe spend some time thinking about why you apparently missed that it's intentionally left ambiguous as to whether the child is even real in the story's world.