Well humans aren't solar powered; it takes thousands of tons of plant matter and hundreds of tons of animal matter in order to sustain each human. And it takes

Well humans aren't solar powered; it takes thousands of tons of plant matter and hundreds of tons of animal matter in order to sustain each human. And it takes hundreds of millenia of experimentation with the real world in order to create a world like the one we currently inhabit. If humans harness 100% of the Earth's solar energy to produce a population 10,000 times its current size, it would still be unsustainable. Likewise, an AGI would need to harness that solar energy to produce silicon wafers and to manufacture chips; it wouldn't dedicate 100% of its energy to thinking. We don't see evidence of life on other planets, and certainly not any evidence of superintelligence gone awry; a planet filled with paperclips is in an extremely low-entropy state. Evolution can happen because human beings, despite being low-entropy beings, turn low-entropy things like bananas and apples into high-entropy things like poop and carbon dioxide. This delicate process is likely why humans are relatively easy to kill, and why a superintelligent AGI would be unlikely to overpower mankind's dominant position on Earth. So the assumption that a superintelligent computer program could suddenly harness 100% of the Earth's solar energy and outsmart humans to the point where it can't be turned off is still a highly unlikely prossibility. The arguments in favor of AI danger are easy to make but likely wrong, the arguments against AI danger are complex, require lots of thought, but are most likely correct.