The “nature”, “evolution”, “survival of the fittest” and “right to exist” argument is interesting.
What is nature if it isn’t just the result of everything that has or does or will exist just bumbling along doing it’s own thing - eating or being eaten. Organisms that are top of their food chain don’t stay there indefinitely; eventually something happens that means another species is better adapted to cope. And this is constantly happening - often glacially slowly but increasingly, under the dominance of Homosapien, that change is quicker.
The changes that we have made to nature mean that thousands of species are now extinct or endangered. We are unusual creatures as we are physically unsuited to our environment. We are nether particularly strong nor quick, ill-suited to the climate, we can’t eat what we find around us etc…
Yet we thrive because we have massive brains (which incidentally mean our heads are so big that we can only just exist - much bigger and we couldn’t be born) which means that we can innovate to resolve our physical shortcomings. We’ve learned to farm crops and animals, make clothes, build houses etc. We have to manipulate and alter “nature” in order to do so. We use our massive brains to make up for our physical shortcomings.
I’d argue (for the sake of argument as much as anything else) that man creating sentient AI is not all that different to the other changes that we make to futilely ensure our place at the top of the food chain. If man, as part of nature, creates tools that lead to AI that is sophisticated enough not just to obey instruction but to suggest alternative actions, evaluate benefits, opine and reason and ultimately have an appreciation of what it is best for us and/or itself - what is it about that creation that excludes it from not just sentient but also natural?
I’m pushing the realms of reason here, I know - but man has survived in nature by brain power alone - constantly learning and advancing. We are now so advanced that we have made things so complicated that we can only do them with the computers we made earlier. Computers are now essential to our survival as a species - at least to maintain our current population and lifestyle. Yet nobody argues that we are not part of nature. I think the creation of AI that is advanced enough to be considered sentient is not only inevitable but could even be considered the next big evolutionary step. AI is evolution. Our days are numbered - we are too clever for our own good. Our brains will continue to evolve, get bigger and birth will become unviable. I believe there will be a big war - man against machine before the AI finally take over - despite the best endeavours of time travelling robots and a wee guy on a dirt bike. ;-)