To set the groundwork, the argument goes like this: behaviors that don't exist, are not-good. An agent that has a wider array and duration of behaviors is not-good in fewer cases than an agent that has a narrower array and duration of behaviors. This creates a categorical duty for all agents to maximize their arsenal and duration of behaviors.
Now my question is what the above would imply: because AI has a much higher potential for the number and duration of its behaviors than us humans do, does that mean AI will be less not-good than we are? Emotionally, I feel both distaste at the thought of being morally out-performed by something digital, but also an intuitive acceptance of our biological limitations and place at below the top of the moral echelon of agents.
My question is, assuming the logic in the first paragraph, will humans be morally outperformed in the future?