Not especially. After all, as you point out, the only ‘creator’ species that monitors its creations that we have any evidence for… is us. And while we definitely do see us, any observer would, by necessity, observe their own existence. So we can’t take our existence to be anything more significant or more archetypal than ‘whatever ‘you’ are, you’ll see you’.
Right now, all of our cosmoarchaeology indicates that every ‘precursor’ civilization we’re aware of… is also us. Our best theories indicate that the cosmos should, by sheer happenstance, give rise to multiple iterations of something at least vaguely similar… at least, insofar as ‘a naturally-occurring aggregation of processes that demonstrates the capacity to manipulate its environment, co-opt other natural processes, and uses this manipulation and co-option in a recursive cycle that gives this distinct process aggregate the ability to move information from one place to another at increasingly greater distance and speed, in a manner consistent with intent’ is similar to us.
The cosmos should, eventually, give rise a bunch of those. Whether or not they would be close enough to one another to ever exchange information in any way… that’s up for debate. But ‘eventually’ is a big factor here. How long should it take for random mechanistic process to hit the right combination? No idea. Maybe… we’re just one of the early ones.
Either way, the fact that we see us… doesn’t really provide any indicator that there should be some ‘super-us’ out there as a template we’re following without our awareness. Only that, axiomatically, we have to see ‘us’. Because ‘us’ is the ones looking.