You make perhaps the most valid critique of this parallel that I’ve yet heard. Black slaves were always human, just like their owners; their owners just didn’t see it that way. The same is fundamentally not true about androids and their human owners. Androids are not humans. They’re androids.
This made me realize what makes these “are AI conscious beings” allegories so boring: they always take place after AI is either very obviously in parallel with or has surpassed human consciousness. They may make hollow declarations like “my social skills programming tells me you are feeling uncomfortable” and shit like that, but all the writer is doing is reframing human instinct and hormones with programming language to make em sound like robits. The AI is rarely, if ever, presented as functioning differently than a human brain, they just announce the programmatic triggers that parallel the fluid biological movement of human emotion and response. The writer has already decided that the AI and human consciousness are, at least, in parallel.
In drawing this comparison, writers tend to fall into the trap of believing that, in describing a sufficiently advanced AI, it is necessary to reduce human consciousness to staccato functions and loops in order to make the comparison function properly, and therefore make the dilemma real. Obviously, consciousness doesn’t work that way, and an AI that does is not indistinguishable from human consciousness, yet that’s what we are supposed to believe.
But why not explore ethical dilemmas around that different, lesser AI? Why not actually explore the notion that an AI that is obviously distinguishable from human consciousness could itself have consciousness? That is a real dilemma, unlike that which is posed in most of these stories. That would be interesting!
[CW: mental health]
I also just thought of a movie that I saw recently which touches on the validity of different kinds of consciousness, from a mental health perspective: Thoroughbreds. It’s about a young woman who is thrust into engaging with a peer of hers, who she’s known since childhood. This peer has sociopathy and is antisocial. She has limited or no emotional response to anything, is basically amoral, says she largely “feels nothing”, and is extremely frank and indifferent towards others.
However, she’s not a bad person and doesn’t want to hurt people, she just, as she puts it, “has to try harder to be good”. Any other movie may have taken her character and made her cruel, or a wildcard that thrashes through the lives of others. But it doesn’t. The movie is quite sympathetic, and doesn’t portray her as less than people without her neurodivergences - just different. It also openly discusses the ‘validity’ of her consciousness. Qualitatively speaking, the acting is extremely solid, the script is sharp and funny, and the pacing is deliberate. I really enjoyed it.

