In your scenario I would tend to agree that an AI could be considered "human" in the sense that it thinks and behaves as another member of our species. However this is a very anthropocentric point of view.
Are you familiar with Tim Urban? He has a blog called Wait but why. He wrote a 2 part piece article about AI that you might find interesting:
Awesome! Thank You! I've just started reading part 1 and will read the rest tonight when I have a bit more time. I love the DPU, it's such a great measurement :-)
What I found fascinating is the estimate that we had made a 20th century worth of progress in just the first 14 years of this one!
Yes in some ways it is; and I allude to that above when I talk about how we love to name cars and make up little conversations we feel our pets are having in their heads!
However I don't believe it is all just a matter of anthropocentric thinking, I see it more like if you are English and you go to China and adopt a Chinese child. Without the Chinese language and culture, that child would be entirely English upon reaching adulthood.
OK, so that's not a perfect analogy as the child is actually human. However in some ways it does fit, we are talking about artificial sentience here. A machine that can, speak, think and learn for itself, can ponder its own existence, whilst making plans for the future.
This sentience will have come from us, and because we are anthropocentric (that's why we build robots that look like us), we will either wittingly or unwittingly make that first sentient machine; human.
Thanks again for the links; and please come back again, I look forward to some interesting debates with you! :-)
Cg