Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is pretty telling that in response to a direct question about what we have to fear from AI, you link to an article that itself remains so obviously vague that they felt the need to address that they are just appealing to other authorities. An actual plausible threat should be easy to describe. In terms of arguments, vagueness indicates weakness.
No, it’s pretty telling of the state of the intellectual discourse when we’re still getting “we could just turn it off” level responses, so appeals to knowledgeable scientific authorities is the most convincing for people who have strong opinions but haven’t done even 30 minutes of grappling with the case made by those they already dismissed. For the more well-read, there are plausible threads: https://www.lesswrong.…
Let's say it wants to kill us.
It makes plans to build robot overlords....
Where is it going to build them? Where are all the lights out factories? Where are all the robots to build the robots to build the robots? Your AGI has a massive bootstrapping problem.
Now it needs to build enough robots, that are reliable enough to maintain and run an entire supply chain. How does it get power, build more chips... The whole world is run by PEOPLE ...
There is the classic I, Pencil. The toaster project (https://www.thomasthwaites.com/the-toaster-project/ ) is the more modern take. It's people who watch the walking dead and dont know enough to ask "where the hell is the gas coming from" because that pipline is days long. It's the forgotten instances of "substation attack" never mind the fact that if linesmen stopped showing up to work the grid would fall apart in weeks.
To be candid that list is the hubris of people who do not have a clue of how the real world works outside their ivory tower.