This seems like nonsense. The author simply invents futures to refute various arguments (all presented out-of-conext, so who knows if there's any real relevanc

This seems like nonsense. The author simply invents futures to refute various arguments (all presented out-of-conext, so who knows if there's any real relevancy from that direction either). What we might do about a super-inteligent AI would strongly depend on what that is, exactly, which, of course, no one knows or really has any idea. So it's OK to casually BS about this stuff, but in terms of substantive discussion, much less action? No.