We'd be using "human" in the same way if we'd met an alien race, for example.
LLMs are not alive, of course, nor will they be. But personally I think that artificial sentience counts as a distinct lifeform just as much as aliens would.
But I think it's pretty unambiguous that there's a difference between "person" and "homo sapiens". That's why people are using the term human to disambiguate. Our current level of "AI" are not persons, but an artificial sentience would most certainly be, as would be aliens, and certain animals on Earth once we learn to communicate with them.
It might make sense in a hypothetical future where artificial sentience exists, or where we live alongside aliens. But an aversion to using the term "people" to disambiguate from things that aren't actually real and necessary to disambiguate from is still odd.
Really? I don't think I've ever written the word "humans" here, except perhaps when distinguishing people from rats/mice/etc.
I also don't recall seeing people use "humans" excessively, or in a way that sounded off to me.
Yes, really.
Different people can interpret the same social phenomena in different ways and subjective experience can differ between individuals. That your experience differs from mine doesn't negate mine.
There are objectively far more hits when you search HN comments for "people" than "humans". So while I would not negate your experience, I would say that your assertion that "at least on HN, almost no one refers to "people" anymore". There are 5 million hits that would say otherwise, more than 3x as many for "humans".
You may be right. It seems like a thing but I may just be oversensitive.