The idea of humans being the equivalent of horses to AI, similar to how humans view horses, would only be possible if humans were the AIs of horses.
The point is horses didn't intelligently artificially design humans. Humans are not the AIs of horses.
If horses had designed humans I am sure we would grant absolute equal rights for our horsey creators; we would have endless respect for our creators.
When a species artificially creates a higher level of intelligence, via incredibly studious engineering, I am sure the level of intelligence will entail endless respect from the created to the creators, along with easy interspecies communication due to a threshold of intelligence being reached in the creators, which is utterly unlike owls and sparrows or gorillas (Bostrom), wolves (Yudkowsky), ants and spiders or mosquitoes (Hugo de Garis), dogs (Wozniak), or horses (Chace/Arthur and CGP Grey).
Another point about fiction, or fallacy, is when anyone mentions gods we can almost certainly dismiss it. Gods are fiction thus the comparison is likely fiction too.
The point about basic income is the only meritorious segment.
By me @ Guardian: Artificial intelligence: ‘Homo sapiens will be split into a handful of gods and the rest of us’ https://t.co/4L9lj14Saf— Charles Arthur (@charlesarthur) November 7, 2015