If you construct a scenario where an “octopus” is actually just a “human in a funny suit”, then sure, you can draw all sorts of unintuitive conclusions. I don’t consider this to be informative.
Suppose that (evolved/uplifted/otherwise-advanced-enough-for-sapience) octopuses share some of our values. Now suppose that humans go extinct, and these Octopus sapiens create an advanced civilization, whose products instantiate some values we would recognize, like art, music, science, etc.
Consider a human being—specifically not yourself. Why are they relevant to your values but an octopus isn’t?
After answering that:
In a hypothetical where an octopus is an artist, a scientist, an author and a reader, why does the difference remain?
If you construct a scenario where an “octopus” is actually just a “human in a funny suit”, then sure, you can draw all sorts of unintuitive conclusions. I don’t consider this to be informative.
Fair. I was drawing on your comment: