In the article it is clear that his opinion is that AI is not sentient and should not become sentient. But if it did become sentient then it should have rights. That seems fairly banal and obvious to me, you have to be pretty fashy to think sentient things shouldnt have any rights.

Obviously current LLMs are not sentient (despite what the valley cultists think), nor are they anywhere close to being so, but do you really feel comfortable saying that if it was sentient it shouldnt have any right because this would create legal issues?