Furthermore, the underlying point of AGI risk is that at no point in the history of forever have we had entities that were more intelligent in all dimensions than a human to contend with. Anything that threatened us we could just push to the limits of their ability to plan then go a bit further to destroy them. And we have humans in every system we've ever built because something has to do the executive decision making and putting a human in was the most cost effective option - which means democratic institutions tend to have an easier time controlling everything.
The threat here is we have no idea at all what happens economically when machines are stronger, faster and just generally better than people. In the long term we might plausibly find an economic equilibrium where humans are not worth feeding. We might find (imo probably will find) that a human-free military is more effective. There is a much greater level of disruption possible here than in the industrial revolution that led ultimately to WWII.
The threat here is we have no idea at all what happens economically when machines are stronger, faster and just generally better than people. In the long term we might plausibly find an economic equilibrium where humans are not worth feeding. We might find (imo probably will find) that a human-free military is more effective. There is a much greater level of disruption possible here than in the industrial revolution that led ultimately to WWII.