Publishing and peer-review is one part of science, but you are missing an equally important one, which is coming up with (hopefully testable) hypotheses. But h

Publishing and peer-review is one part of science, but you are missing an equally important one, which is coming up with (hopefully testable) hypotheses. But how can you have something testable about something that does not exist yet? You would have to have evidence that an actual, intelligent program does something hostile, which is obviously impossible at the time since AGI has not been invented yet. However, we do have evidence of naturally occuring hostile intelligence. If an AGI is vastly superior in some regards (for example through much tighter integration in knowledge and control systems), it could in fact pose a danger. The article even clearly states a hypothesis: "Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn't compete and would be superseded." We can’t really assign a probability of occurrence to scenarios like these, thus we have to include it in the list of events that could potentially wipe us out and which we may be able to prevent. Since people are actively working on AGI, it should probably be somewhere at the top where nuclear warfare, global warming and comet impacts are listed.