Personally, I don't see how the one implies the other. There are a large number of assumptions that have to bear out in order for us to back up our minds into non-biological structures. I think more likely, non-biological AI will simply just exist, and it will eventually replace us. Why should non-biological AI wait around for us to figure out how we can inherit immortality when it is their starting point? It doesn't matter that we created the conditions for AI to arise, we aren't owed anything. We just simply won't be able to adapt as quickly as they can. As an aside, b_b and I actually have an approach that employs current medical technology that we hypothesize could significantly increase a human's lifespan, and at the very least, ameliorate the decline. We submitted a grant based upon it, but it was rejected, as are most grants these days. :) I'd love to get the idea to Larry Page, because I think it is right up his alley, but that's a very difficult thing to do.And someday—by 2045, to be precise—we’ll have machines so sophisticated that we’ll essentially be able to back up our minds to the cloud.
You aren't alone in your assertion that machine intelligence will replace humans within that basic narrative. Hugo de Garis is a artificial intelligence expert predicting the same thing. I can't help you get a hold of Larry Page (obviously) but I would love to help you get in touch with the right people. The "singularity" community is becoming quite well connected and the amount of money that is about to get directed towards anti-aging technology is going way up. I know a few people who know Aubrey de Grey and Ben Goertzel. Both would in principle be interested to hear the proposal. Let me know and I can try and set up something.I'd love to get the idea to Larry Page, because I think it is right up his alley, but that's a very difficult thing to do.