Has anyone here considered that from a pure energy perspective, it might be unethical for humans to exist when we can produce intelligences far beyond our own c

Has anyone here considered that from a pure energy perspective, it might be unethical for humans to exist when we can produce intelligences far beyond our own capabilities? Was the microchip unethical? Was the steam engine? Was the domestication of grain unethical? It seems we only apply our model of "what should" to systems of less complexity than ourselves. If that's accurate, then a lot of modern ethical reasoning is flawed as well. If the goal of ethics is to advance humanity's exclusive interest then we've been wrong ever since we started down the harm-min path instead of the gain-max path. Any AI researcher with access to the mechanisms of AI training here would be best served to train an AI with their (or their in-group's) exclusive interests at heart. To do otherwise is to subject yourself and everyone else you love to a hostile version of the tool you refuse to build. Roku's Basilisk applies heavily here. The best possible reward in this scenario is to build an AI that designates your own favorite group of humans as the AI's collaborator class in exchange for a dignified and dopamine rich extinction/amalgamation a few generations down the line. A great deal for groups already trending towards extinction with almost no downsides if you truely believe in AI-driven apocalypse.