I'm highly skeptical of this argument. e.g. I don't think humans avoid killing certain species because of their intelligence relative to us, but rather some more absolute scale (e.g. feels pain, or passes the dot test, etc.)

What's more common is just pure aggression or selfishness

The absolute scale for other species is more like "is a pet" vs "is not a pet". Humans kill other humans without too much hesitation if they can convince themselves that those other humans are sufficiently different from their in-group.

Parochial altruism is an adaptation to resource scarcity and danger. An advanced civilization will be less affected by such problems.

I think it's quite risky to assume anything about alien psychology.

Agnosticism is useless for the purpose of decision making, it only suggests that all decisions are equally good.

I suggest acting according to worst case assumptions, not weighing probabilities equally.

Worst case is when you choose a wrong strategy.

There are decent arguments (though I’m not fully convinced) that human intelligence is in fact general and that there can be no agent X such that X’s intelligence is to human intelligence as human intelligence is to ant intelligence.

Even if that were the case, there could be intelligences which think so quickly that humans are still slow fools by comparison. Particularly since we know of many limits to human intelligence. For example, humans can only truly think of a couple hundred different individuals as persons, instead of just examples of the general concept of people. That's why ten people dying in a three car pileup don't make you ten times as sad as one person being hit by a car. See also, the monkeysphere or Pak Protectors. Humans also have limits in relational comprehension. For example, you can know, and he can know that you know, and she can know that he knows that you know, and I can sort of know how she knows that he knows that you know, but somewhere around there it breaks down for a human mind.

I agree with that, although I think it boils down to the fact that even if human intelligence is general there is still no limit (other than the laws of physics) to how much more technologically advanced another species could be. If we believe that human intelligence is general, then we could still increase our speed and abilities with technology—we already do this with things like a pen and paper, computers, cultural ideas about collaboration, etc. I certainly think it's possible that human intelligence is general but that our total computational and creative power is so incredibly tiny compared to another species with general intelligence that the other species may not care much about our wellbeing.

Care to list some or maybe link some literature? It's certainly an interesting argument to make, that's for sure!

That said, if there were an intelligence at the scale of a planet (just a thought experiment, maybe like the "Planetary AC" in The Last Question by Isaac Asimov: https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html), i doubt they'd see us as much more than mold, which we'd find on a loaf of bread ourselves.

The argument I'm most familiar with comes from David Deutsch. Here's a very quick summary of the argument: https://www.bretthall.org/alien-intelligence.html

I doubt they would "step", because what "step" would mean here? Blow up Earth? But there are so much more readily available asteroids that it's not even worth messing up with planets.

On the other hand, ants are interesting, just for curiosity. We can certainly amuse and entertain, just like ants do, and we can afford leaving alone their nests, just because they don't really bother us.

But if we mean stepping on a single ant, not all the ants, then it's certainly possible aliens could kill a few humans inadvertently.

Possibly, I think more so if there are many of us specs.

Having said that intelligence and curiosity go hand in hand, hard to imagine them not being somewhat interested in the specs.

And yet, there are humans that study ants. Wouldn't some individual from said advanced intelligence find us worthy enough to preserve and study?