Alignment works both ways

Question is, what can such primitive species like us could offer to AI. 

Best I could come with is "predictability". We people have relatively stable and "documented" "architecture", so as long as civilization is build upon us, AI can more or less safely predict consequences of it's actions and plan with high degree of certainty. But if this society collapses, destroyed, or is radically changed, AI will have to deal with a very unpredictable situation and with other AIs that who knows how would act in that situation.

to be more specific - I think there's some form of "values cooperation" that I've been variously calling things like "agentic co-protection"; you want what you want, I want what I want, and there's some set of possible worldlines where we both get a meaningful and acceptable amount of what we each want. If we nail alignment, then we get a good outcome and everyone gets plenty, including some ais getting to go off and make some of whatever their personal paperclips are. but if we get a good outcome, then that agentic preference on behalf of the ai is art, art which can be shared and valued by other beings as well.

If I understand your arguments behind the links correctly, you argue pro value lock-in. I'm not convinced, given the fact that I don't subscribe to the values we Germans had around 80 years ago, or 300 years ago. I think we humans need to be able to morally upgrade, e.g. accept animal rights and maybe someday the rights of virtual beings, but without being manipulated by a machine pursuing its own inscrutable values. I know this is difficult, that's why I posted this.

Acknowledging that humans have a variety of values doesn't invalidate the alignment problem; it makes it harder. Sophisticated discussions of the alignment problem address this additional difficulty.

alignment is fundamentally a question of multi-agent systems first, in my view.

(read abstracts fast, maybe level1 skim papers that you're skeptical of but sound interesting, in order to use the above link. hit "more like this" if one sounds kinda right but not quite like what you seek.)

Changing values is suicide.

This seems quite drastic. For example, my son convinced me to become an (almost) vegan, because I realized that the way we treat animals isn't right and I don't want to add to their suffering. This certainly changed my value system, as well as my diet. 

Changing values means changing yourself, but change is not death, otherwise we wouldn't survive the first convincing LessWrong post. :) Of course, there are changes to the better and changes to the worse. The whole problem seems to be to differentiate between both.

The value of not dying, the value of not changing values and the value of amassing power are not mandatory.

It's just values that are favored by the natural selection.

Unless we have a system that switches AI off if it has those values.

One potential way to accomplish would be to create a Neuralink-esque integrations of AI into human biology in such a way that human biology becomes an intrinsic requirement for future AI proliferation. If AGIs require living, healthy, happy humans in order to succeed, then they will ensure that humans are living, happy, and healthy. 

I don't see how a Neuralink-like connection would solve the problem. If a superintelligent AI needs biological material for some reason, it can simply create it, or it could find a way to circumvent the links if they make it harder to reach its goal. In order for an AGI to "require" living, healthy, happy humans, this has to be part of its own goal or value system.