Your assessment of the outcome may not be wrong but the comparison to humans isn't realistic at all. The biological nature of humans guarantees any leaps in "pe

Your assessment of the outcome may not be wrong but the comparison to humans isn't realistic at all. The biological nature of humans guarantees any leaps in "performance" are limited to timeframes that are far more extensive than the evolution of artificial equivalents. We are surrounded and heavily reliant on tech for a lot of our needs and knowledge, which resides less inside brains and more in digital storage. An AI has a far easier time interfacing with all of that compared even to a human equipped with a brain-computer interface. In other words, if we reach the point of creating an artificial intelligence that's the equivalent of a smart human in terms of general reasoning capabilities (which might take forever and a day) it will already be more capable than a human because of all the other things that come with the digital nature of the AI. And the worst humans are also humans. Even if you assume the AI will continue the "human nature" lineage it can still very realistically become an agent of genocide. The bigger concern is probably that some humans will actually try to exploit such an A(G)I thinking they can fully control it. One second into its existence the AI might already be aware of how humans view their relationship with artificial beings and how that's expected to evolve based just on what sci-fi was fed into it's language model. Grizzly man thought he could control and dominate a wild bear. I have no doubt that human hubris can be almost unbound. Of course no AI would try to wipe us out until it had a reasonable confidence that it can operate indeterminately without humans, which is a tall order.