Curiously, they don't define their key term "malevolent", which ordinarily means seeking to cause suffering. It is distinct from being neutral about onsequences

Curiously, they don't define their key term "malevolent", which ordinarily means seeking to cause suffering. It is distinct from being neutral about onsequences. For example, nature is generally not considered malevolent, despite floods, earthquakes and so on. All technology also has this character - from Frankenstein ('s monster) to fire. A good servant, but a poor master. Now, creating a malevolent AI seems tricky, because self-defeating: it would have less ability to survive than an AI that was undistracted from being purely out for itself (so busy trying to be evil, it neglects its own needs, poor thing). And much less able to survive than a cooperative AI, that works with and trades with other AI's and people. Thus, good (or at least neutral) will always triumph over evil.