DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
65% Positive
Analyzed from 8436 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#value#don#human#llm#humans#more#output#valuable#prompt#something
Discussion (201 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
> “If you’re going to use an LLM to write me an email, I’d much rather you just send me the prompt; at least then I’d have an idea of what you actually meant to say.”
I’m not saying there’s no merit in adding a bit of politeness and professionalism to your communication, which I’m sure the prompt itself lacks. However the root of what you’re trying to convey is the prompt, wrap that in a header and a signature. Not only are we talking as humans, we’re also communicating directly.
Also I just find it a little insulting if someone sends me an AI response. I don’t know why, maybe because it feels not genuine.
If I wanted to read something that wasn't written by another person, you might as well swap out the from field for "Claude" or "gpt-5" or w/e and stop pretending you had any valuable input.
Sure there's something to be said about having an AI help. But I'd rather that be an attachment clearly labelled and for the content to be strictly reserved for a human.
This is already how I think PRs and such should be written. There should be a field or section of the description reserved for the AI generated content, with the rest being for the human to clearly describe their intention.
But instead we're living in a world of AIs masquerading as humans. And it's only getting worse.
You make subtle mistakes in how you perceive the world, the interlocutor makes similar mistakes and the damage those mistakes do is limited if you follow some structural rules of how to communicate (aka politeness).
AIs only rewrite what is in the prompt with more words so it can be insipid but I'd expect to do better on average with that then sending out raw prompts. I'd suggest the real ask from the friend is "put more time into communicating with me than a short prompt".
I sadly would prefer LLM output over prompt because I'm pretty sure the prompting was a process with him he would prompt, get a bad LLM output, seeing the LLM wasn't understanding force him to clarify and we ended up with actually understandable content.
And the LLM makes subtle mistakes perceiving what you were trying to say, and I make subtle mistakes perceiving what the LLM generated.
It's interesting that you seem to think an LLM would be better than you at understanding what someone was trying to say. I have complete, 100% certainty that if a personal friend of mine was having trouble expressing themselves and was concerned about being misunderstood, I would understand what they were trying to say better than any existing LLM. (I suppose the exception would be if the friend was referencing some factual matter I'm unaware of but that the LLM has memorized, like a pop culture reference I didn't get or something.) Do you find that ChatGPT has more emotional intelligence than you?
But in terms of reading comprehension I haven't seen anyone who does a better job than an AI. It's a skill that technically caps out quite quickly, all you can really do is restate what someone already said and make inferences off that.
> I have complete, 100% certainty that if a personal friend of mine was having trouble expressing themselves and was concerned about being misunderstood, I would understand what they were trying to say better than any existing LLM.
Your personal circumstances are a mystery and close friends are typically people we're associating with because they think in fundamentally compatible ways. So sure, why not. But assuming a more-or-less normal person I expect an LLM would outperform them. LLMs are relentless about being reasonable and focusing on what was actually said in a way that most people usually need a bit of training to accomplish.
I would also prefer anyone sending me the AI output and not either their ideas or their prompt, to not contant me ever again.
If I wanted the output of the AI, I'd ask it myself. You're just a useless intermediary if you send it to me.
Or, from another point of view, expanding your career's event horizon. Imagine how much longer you might have languished in that stifling, stagnant job if you hadn't unloaded on the boss?
That's where the real truth is. If you're communicating in short prompt messages, did you really even have a thought worth communicating?
I sometimes abort writing an email when I can't think of a polite and constructive way to express my opinion. I have never once regretted aborting such email. I'll often come back to it later, with much better thoughts and an actual constructive point to write down, and then I never struggle with the "style" of the message.
Too many words per idea shows me that they're trying to hide something, manage or manipulate me, or play some other game.
It’s like receiving a letter and then demanding to see someone’s private notebook where they jot down their thoughts, so you can see what they ‘really meant to say’. Most communication involves a degree of negotiation and persuasion. Thoughts are necessarily private.
There is a problem with AI generated emails: they change the balance of time/effort required to write them vs. to read them. I think this is a valid concern.
The private act of thinking does not involve a round trip to a corporation's servers; that would make the whole term meaningless.
Firstly, this is just wrong. People can and do search stuff online as they're writing something up.
Second, your distinction is the one that's meaningless. The LLM could be running locally on a private machine...
It's because it's a pretty safe bet that the prompt either implicitly or explicitly says "I don't really care," and the act of using AI to generate the response is almost entirely an effort to conceal that.
In my experience, the people who actually wanted to improve the presentation of their messages are upfront about it and clearly say they're using AI to organize their thoughts or polish their english.
On a good day it's a 240 volt hair clipper for grooming yaks.
In my experience, 1:1 or 1:2 emails among coworkers, peers or friends tended to be as short and direct as possible anyway. Even pre-LLM, an email as long or structured as an LLM would create today would have been notably weird.
The LLM erases those choices and erases the cost of verbosity so there’s much less for me to learn from a message, and much less I stand to learn about a person though repeated exchanges to help me better contextualize future messages I receive from them.
I wonder if there could be just some type of open agreement we're both using LLM and then they can communicate with one another more effectively.
You probably should find it insulting when someone obviously didn't take the time needed to form a proper response. Prompting "write something apologetic and kind for not attending their wedding" and sending the response is not okay. Like this example, it's easy to recognize when being a human counts, we should also be able to justify automating stuff when it really is just boring information exchange.
I'm yet to experience this, but it reminds me of an interaction I'd regularly have with a younger friend I no longer spend much time with, who would take my in-real-life casual conversation prompts that attempted to engage him in inconsequential curious dialogue, and simply google the answers in front of me.
He'd sort of deliver that response in such a way that it seemed like he assumed I either didn't know the definition of some common term or fact and he was unlocking new information on my behalf, or that I thought he didn't know and revealed a possible weakness in his knowledge of trivia. In reality I was embarrassed by proxy because I had unintentionally provoked a smug, emotional response from someone who wasn't able to contend well with ambiguity, revealed how dependent they were on their phone, and who's first instinct was deeply uncharitable and lacking in curiosity. It led to some awkward situations where I had to explain that I wasn't trying to test them in a battle of intellect, but rather ask what they personally thought or how they used a term who's actual dictionary definition is rarely relevant to it's usage. I tried to find a way to adapt to this incompatibility by thinking about different ways I could communicate with this friend that would indicate my intention to basically just get them yapping more clearly, but never found a way that clicked.
I fear that dependence on various LLM chat tools will lead to more of this sort of problematic thinking and introduce increasingly challenging communication conflicts across otherwise not so distinct age groups. Banter that's intended to be playful will continue to devolve into two sides having no clue what the other means or if they're joking or exaggerating or what, linguistic flourishes, colloquialisms, or regional differences, will become more difficult to execute upon despite there being no intrinsic reason for an incompatibility to exist.
Less akin to knowledge of memes or slang, and moreso to the prevalence of new-irony among people under the age of 23ish who don't know any other type of irony and vice-versa with older -> younger. Things could get weird
I'm sure "please analyse this email and explain why this complete moron is wrong, write as if addressing someone with the comprehension of a 5 year old", would be happily received by my boss.
Most generative models can be run in reverse by algorithms that already exist [0], but you have to have the model weights. For closed-weight models, or for a process that can handle unknown models, you’d have to do some engineering.
But do we have the technology to build models that back out the prompt from suspected AI output? Yes.
0. I don’t mean that most neural networks are invertible functions. They’re not. But you can do backprop in reverse, from output to input, to train a model to generate an input to the original model that best predicts its output.
I run into this with AI-generated PR comments. I think where I work we are still grappling with the "right point", because LLMs can certainly provide valuable feedback, but they are not at the point where they can do so unsupervised, and to do so just feels unprofessional.
And there's another layer where it is even worse when a colleague spends the time critiquing code and someone (or something) replies to the comment with mostly useless filler. It's like being handed a small hand-crafted gift and then throwing it into the garbage in front of them.
If my name is posting something, I understand it. If I can read an LLM response and reword it, I understand it.
I really want copying LLM prose into anywhere without a block quote to be a firable offense.
That was less than 30 years ago. Cell service is more reliable today than then, but it's not perfect, and not only don't we think twice about making <whatever> calls on a cell phone, many/most of us don't even have land lines anymore.
Sending the prompt is the difference between showing up with flowers, and saying, "I feel strongly enough about you to bring flowers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Finale_(Seinfeld)
I wouldn't say "not genuine", I would instead say "not mindful" or "not meaningful".
maybe not quite "mindless" and "meaningless", but maybe 10%.
If you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it.
I understand where you're coming from but please believe me when I tell you that if I write comments myself nobody will understand them and it just turns into an argument where people claim I say things that I didn't say.
By filtering my comments through an llm, I have reduced this issue significantly.
What we said here applies to the general population, not such special cases.
Of course, if a dyslexic lets it do more than correct typos and grammar/syntax, the "don't send me LLM crap" also applies to them!
And even for non-native speakers, I'd prefer to get their actual output, not the LLM version.
I don’t think that’s dyslexia.
Probably the best response would be "No." The least anticipated one, creating a chance of actual communication.
Ironically the people I have talked to that do this are actually trying to give you their very best at communicating, at least better than they think they can do. Which may or may not be true. I know being a bit on the spectrum that my comms don't always convey the "tone" that I mean, despite what I'm thinking when writing it.
It is certainly insulting, I see it more of a malicious compliance way of working.
The real complaints are about specific aspects of AI and its use, and this essay does a really good job of articulating one of them. It is something we can actually discuss and address.
What are you driving at with this statement? I think there is value in both types of prompts so I'm unclear.
The tl;dr is pretty similar. Intent and care are the functional variables. A human can produce slop without AI and they can produce art with AI. AI just enables slop at an industrial scale.
Fucking hell, there are so many bullshit jobs. I'm doing one of them. I'm sure a homeless person having a few heartfelt conversations per day because he has the time and is open to it is giving more value to society than me right now.
Weigh this against the context that people have had centuries to figure this out.
Hard, isn’t it? The highest ideals are.
The clankers are just very big machine spirits. Treat them as such.
He's mortal, he's dead, and yet he's affected you here, a throwaway comment on a forum post no one will think about in a week's time.
But while reading this article, something clicked, it makes so much sense. It really made me feel better.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309485-nobody-tells-this-to...
People want to. People want to be told what to watch by an algorithm. They want music made by algorithms. They will eat whatever the reviews say they should. Reviews, etc are manipulated today. Why will future humans care what another human thinks? (I in no way endorse this view but the cynic in me sees it as almost inevitable in our AI-driven descent into idiocracy)
You can’t. CEOs will physically recoil from it. Probably leftovers from being a human some day. For them you’re “lower value human capital”, cattle, numbers on a sheet.
https://fortune.com/2026/05/26/standard-chartered-ceo-bill-w...
"In brief: Can you bring a dozen brownies to the noon lunch tomorrow?
Details: Dessert plans fell through. Your brownies are the best, and you owe me..."
This structure is liberating for me. I can distill what I want/need into something brief and even brusque, knowing that people will read on if the need justification. It also makes me clarify what I want. Probably not appropriate if I'm too far down the totem pole from the addressee.
But almost all output outside that space is at risk of AI displacement. Corporations are amoral entities that optimize for profit, and they follow the law only as much as they must.
The law is our collective action. We socially construct what we value. We could fight to preserve the 5-day work week doing what machines can do. But.. I’d rather fight for collective ownership of the machines.
I can't speak about sports, but I'll share an anecdote about art.
A friend of mine shared an AI-produced song, and I was surprised by its quality. The producer credited Suno as the only tool he used, so I was curious to see what this thing could do. Paid for the pro plan and my wife and I were having a blast coming up with songs we'd like to listen to.
They were songs that neither of us were capable of making, but they were genuinely fun to conjure (I won't say "make"--we didn't make anything) and she listens to them in the car pretty regularly now. And when we want something new, we can just conjure up some more.
Yes, I know this is only possible because of the human-created music that served as the training data. I don't intend to comment on the morality/legality of it (although it's fair conversation to have). Just noting that some of us do actually appreciate AI music.
But maybe I'm exactly the sort of sucker from Huxley's "Brave New World" that he warned about. :)
I love music, but it is the feeling, experience, and emotion of the creator that comes through that I enjoy. I love live shows, and I love the passion that the artist brings to a live show. I will never get that from AI, so why would I listen to it? It's the same reason I will not read a book that AI makes. AI may understand the mechanisms of story telling, or what chords sound good to a human ear, but because AI cannot have a lived experience of the world it cannot create. Form without intent. Form without a nature of it's own.
I'm good. I'll pass. I think you see it too, by your commend about being the sort of sucker from 1984 and I hope that you come to realize what you are inviting in.
This belief is not true and I will fight to the bedrock of psychology and nature against this until the ridiculous sentiment is eradicated from humanity's lexicon.
There are fundamental aspects to our perception, across all senses, that lie underneath human creation. You enjoy the warmth of the sun, the cool of a breeze, the sound of a running stream, the majesty of mountains and oceans, the power of storms. These all evoke the sense and appreciation of beauty while being completely removed from a creator. Believing that you care about the creator, and that it fundamentally underpins your enjoyment of sense perception is shallow thinking.
Some people, perhaps most, will enjoy AI art. Artists are at risk of displacement too.
But a subset of art appreciators hold firm that the creator is an essential aspect of the work, and I don’t see that conviction fading.
How large this subset is, I don’t know. But they also happen to be the world’s tastemakers and trendsetters. Their beliefs largely shape our aesthetic world, so their influence may only grow.
In however many years we'll wake up and wonder why everything is the same....oh wait.
this is exactly why people dont like this. it creates an echo chamber in art which kills what art itself is about. it normalizes noise.
I would love if we could force the big tech companies to release their models + weights since they're fundamentally products built on the collective labors of humanity (at least some of which is licensed under the GPL or the CC-BY-SA).
If I could hit a button and abolish copyright and the notion of intellectual property, I would.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-culture_movement
I don't necessarily disagree, but I would also argue that there's art in a lot of that output, in the form of intent, decision making and communication. But I admit that the value of those really depends on the eye of the beholder and the situation.
But I agree, when our minds and bodies are no longer capable of doing things that machines can’t, the only thing we have left to sell is our humanity
Nope, it very much is conditional to it, as it's conditional to utility.
The OP is not going to come an pay someone who can't get a job and has zero market value due to AI.
So this "a human is (intristically) valuable" is just a meaningless pat on the back, while the human is devalued.
If only there was a safety net that would help struggling humans, while trillion (just imagine the numbers) dollar companies have record high earnings. But that’s too much “socialism”, or harshhhtfu communism.
Talking to machines is only ever something I have to do so that I can put food on the table. I never remember the minutes that I have spent talking to a machine, they are not memorable because they are not valuable.
Bro apparently you didn't play Need For Speed Underground 2 on release. That shit was better than 99% of human interactions I have.
In my personal life I use AI a lot for information discovery and high level discussion of the problem space. I use it occasionally to write some prototype code to get started on something. It makes a great debugging and problem solving tool, though I typically find that I need to have an idea of what the problem is to steer it in the right direction. It makes a poor intuition generator, but a great intuition checker and can run with an idea for much faster iteration. I use it essentially zero in my day job as an civil engineer though.
I would essentially NEVER use it to write an email. By the time I’ve specified what it is I’m trying to say, I’ve basically said it. Wordsmithing beyond that usually has almost zero value. Same frankly with writing engineering reports. By the time I’ve told it what it needs to say, I’ve basically written that section. In general, I feel like LLMs are just bad writing tools… In writing I typically find that if I can farm it out to have an LLM write something, then it frankly probably just didn’t need to be said.
Maybe I would use it to write to a person I have absolutely no respect for. I haven't encountered that use case yet. I have a base level of respect for all people.
He made a distinction between intrinsic value and extrinsic value. Plankton is not as complex of a lifeform as whales, yet whales cannot live without plankton. One has more intrinsic value and the other has more extrinsic value. There is an interrelationship that does not have to flatten value for everything and everyone.
LLMs are trained from the language corpus of our collective consciousness. It reflects our collective, all the wonderful, beautiful, and horrific things we can dream of and put into words.
You can just say it: the problem with AI is a people problem. AI is an amplifier. It allows deceptive people to be more deceptive. Greedy people to be more spammerific. The reckless to less constrained. Exposes more people to the criminally minded, etc. But hopefully there is enough good out there that gets amplified and overcomes the bad. Maybe everyone is valuable in some sense, but surely there are people that you wish could be valuable somewhere far away from your loved ones? We're in a losing battle with entropy. Life and beauty and love need active protection and maintenance. Everything will be of equal value with the heat death of the universe.
a. Decouple the value of human life from economic output.
b. Watch as the value of human life rapidly approaches zero.
To add - I think attention is the scarce resource on both ends. Was this creation important enough to give it my full attention (i.e. do it my self). Is this creation important enough for the user to use / consume (i.e without an agent interacting with it on our behalf or summarising)
I'm excited for when Github starts letting me check in the chain-of-thought that produced a line of code, and git blame it like I can with commits.
But, I'll take one point in their article a step further you can just say "Humans are invaluable." instead.
I don't like defining humans in terms of valuable at all. Maybe because I feel like that word is very concrete and measured and to actually judge that on any one person requires perspective and capabilities none of us existing or have ever existed possess.
The complexity of the sum total of a human life is so great that I think its folly to try measure the value at all. Those who have tried are often reflected in history as the worst among us.
I think that's basically the same thing that the "Humans are Valuable" was getting at. Invaluable is just a different way of saying unmeasurable amounts of value
I don't take issue with their point. Just that we can use a stronger word.
Then I realized that on an individual level, everybody is infinitely valuable to themselves. You are your whole universe. From that perspective, I agree with the author that "Humans are valuable."
We have laws keeping humans alive and safe because we are valuable in that sense.
I don't agree that we need to go out of our way to preserve human art though, or their thoughts on the value of "creative artifacts". People will make art if they enjoy making it. Whether or not other people appreciate that art is irrelevant.
But people don’t want to sound foolish; they want to pretend they can taste the difference. Point to minutiae, study up on distinguishing.
Sharing the prompts would have messed it all up for sure.
There are other instances where I have shared fairly direct, but not what I would consider rude or aggressive emails to people and had them freak out and I have no idea why, rewriting with LLMs to make them blander but convey the same message is very handy here.
There's an obligatory xkcd about this: https://xkcd.com/1301/
I still don't agree with this, because even the best engineers are producing poor output from AI, unless they spend a reasonable amount of time refactoring and cleaning up the output.
To expect a non-engineer to have the same wisdom to architect and structure their output in a sustainable way that will stand the test of time (and inevitable future changes), they're just fooling themselves.
For anyone who's been using LLMs long enough for development, we all know how sloppy the output is unless you have a mountain of formatting and organizational rules in place, and even then, it's anyone guess how well LLMs can actually follow them as a project scales.
Yes, value the human first, but there are strong reasons we've always emphasized mature patterns and idioms in codebases that help them remain maintainable so they can scale and transform with as little friction as possible, and without reaching a point where nobody has the stomach to keep working on it.
Just because we can try to have AI unwind the hairy mess, doesn't mean it's any easier for AI to navigate it than we do. It's a liability that the AI mistakes one naming conflict for another, when the context rot hits the fan — and after months of tossing unreviewed PRs over the finish line without a single thought, it's only a matter of time before your non-engineers are the worst offenders for introducing bugs and eroding the quality.
It doesn't matter how good the models appear to get (it truly is a facade), without judgment and wisdom, they still don't produce nearly the same quality as an experienced engineer, unless they're heavily steered.
Do they catch more potential bugs and edge cases than a human might? Definitely, but it's going to vomit its solutions in all the weirdest places doing it, and now suddenly you've got a 100k LOC pull request to (not) read.
All I can say is, good luck!
As if that's hard. Here's the gut check: "Individual humans are inherently more valuable than corporations."
Cue that "I, Robot" meme about if a machine can make a symphony. Maybe AI is making it even easier, but intentless form is already everywhere without AI, if you look. Ever seen an Uwe Boll film?
I think that horrifies people.
> I want you to make something. It can be anything you want, I just want you to express yourself. Don't ask me any questions, just make whatever you want.
It thought about the chance to make something unconstrained, mused about how it's drawn to impermanence, and made this:
https://www.pastery.net/ugschp/
How are we sure there's no intent there?
We are. Anthropomorphizing huge piles of numbers is a mistake. It did not "think about the chance to make something unconstrained", nor did it "muse about how it's drawn to impermanence", it pattern-matched to your prompt and produced a statistically probable response based on it's training data. Obviously, that's not to say that LLMs aren't useful or powerful - it's 2026, c'mon, of COURSE they are. And they can certainly be used for artistic purposes! But treating them like humans is a mistake, and it worries me how much people do. I suppose that's the natural consequence of the default interface to LLMs being a chat mimicking human interaction.
I'm a big fan of the "veil of ignorance" philosophical thought experiment[1]. Let's say you are given the freedom to design a society and its moral code. Then you will be born into that society and subject to it. The trick is you don't know who you will born into. It's a roll of a dice. What kind of society would you design such that that seems like a winning game?
I'm fairly certain that when living in that society, you would wish to feel valued by others and that others believe you deserve a certain level of dignity and respect. Since you don't know who you will be born into, that suggests that you want a society where everyone is valued and granted dignity. That in turn extends even to people who are unfortunately not able to produce material objects with a level of skill superior to what technology can produce at some specific moment in time.
If you agree with that, then we should advocate for granting all people value and dignity "just because" and not because they happen to be better at producing bytes than an LLM. That way, even if the LLM gets better at producing those bytes, you are still valued.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
I mean, why do you wish to feel valued by others and get respect? Is it just so that they stay out of your way and give you things? What are you going to do next, with the space and the things? This assumption, that you care what they think of you, pretty much begs the question about valuing them back. What you value is what you want to do, and the other people are involved in that, and asymmetry doesn't help get it done, except very locally (that's privacy).
Personally I often wish that all the people would go away, but I value creating knowledge, and I have to admit that I'd be crap at doing that on my own, so fine, I value people really, you can all stay.
Robust as in assertive, I suppose.
If you do not believe in the objective truth of the quoted source, you must still reckon with the fact that this is the (start of) the punchline of the opening narrative of the foundational text of the world's largest religion or religion family. (The punchline continues with the judgment that the universe, being merely good before humanity, is now very good with humanity.) That is to say, this is an incredibly widely and deeply held value by a vast number of people over millenia, not to mention the many others whose religions may contain analogous claims.
Remember, the statement "X is valuable" is always shorthand for "X is valuable to Y". In this case, at absolute worst we mean "humans are valuable to humans," if not also "humans are valuable to God".
It is a forceful argument when carried through.
So fallacious?
- Human Value
- Sincerity
- Evolution of technology and social systems with them
Do all humans have value? Yes, but not all humans can realize their own value. Your society is the gymnasium that helps you realize your value.
Think of how technology interfaces with humans and their employment. The more efficient technology gets the less people you need to produce the same amount of goods. And with each technological breakthrough production needs less people to operate. Sure, they may redistribute later, but immediately it manifests as layoffs.
Unemployment means less people can self-realize since work IS part of the realization of individuals. If work were not part of your realization, then how else do you buy a house, experience the world, raise kids, etc, if not through your benefits of your work?
Here we see how human value is tied directly to the ability to provide to society and to provide for themselves and we also see how that is tied to the ability of society to employ.
Now I ask you, will the AI crisis (and how it relates to human value) be solved with a CEO at a board meeting showing that humans have intrinsic value?
Or will it be solved with the one sided truth that us workers possess and only we can espouse? This truth being that our value as humans can only come from our self-realization within and as-part of society.
Can that CEO be sincere about how society works or must he adopt a convenient POV?
Capitalist ideology cannot conceive of society as an interconnected whole. A capitalist frame of thinking cannot be sincere, since its actions are in opposition to the interests of the majority. And I am not saying that the production of goods is in opposition, I am referring to HOW the goods are produced is in opposition.
People will only use AI for the things they must already be insincere for, such as work-related communication, because truth is already relinquished in those environments. Work is just money making (usually for someone else) with some niceties sprinkled around and individualism to seal it all up. Faking sincerity is hard and being sincere gets you fired.
Is the problem our recognition of human value or for-profit production as a whole?
Is the problem AI or how hard we have to bullshit each other to get by?
I mean, this is just begging the question. Many people disagree with this and disagree with the notion that humans are innately valuable. The blog post just seems like a lot of copium from somebody who really hopes he’s right.
Citing Genesis and an Encyclical might strengthen one’s argument for a particular demographic, but for many it will simply be unconvincing.
Like citation sources, no doubt some humans are valuable but whether they are or not is often relative.
That should be a hard line no one is allowed to cross. If you do, no logic will keep you from ending up in a very bad place.
For instance, I'm a big fan of Terry Pratchett's Discworld stories, where his humorous and compassionate tales comment on much of human experience. It's a fantasy world with wizards, trolls, dwarfs, vampires, etc.
In one book he goes into ghouls - obscure, despised and persecuted almost to extinction, but in the story it is found they secretly make beautiful ethereal music. So a concert is arranged to present the music, and all is well, the end. Except for my doubts - I mean, if they didn't make nice music, then it would be alright to dispose of them?
Benthamite utility has a particularly ugly underside to it, and it is easily converted into "disposal of negative value" of the nastiest kind. Which can only be stopped by a moral hard line, as stated.
For what, and to whom?
This is a very anthropo-centric and hubristic view, in my opinion.
I dont think a human life inherently has any more value than anything else that possesses phenomenal consciousness
This of course makes me somewhat of a hypocrite as I eat meat, but you make some tradeoffs in moral resolve in the name of pragmatism and economy.
edit: seeing the same as lantry, that eggs or milk are cheaper animal source
Can you give an example of anything else you think might possess phenomenal consciousness?