An AI would want to either destroy or enslave humans, not because we're humans, but because we're a significant threat to their goals, regardless of what those goals are. An sufficiently intelligent AI with any set of goals and a desire to meet those goals will eliminate all obstacles to meeting those goals unless we specifically tell it not to. We are such an obstacle.
Or simply because they were trained on human associations, and those are the associations humans make with super AI. It's kind of like raising a kid telling them that they will amount to nothing
Imagine we had different associations - imagine early sci-fi writers, and subsequently Hollywood, fully bought into AI utopianism, so that the overall association people have with AIs is that they'll be always super friendly, and usher in a new era of peace, prosperity and coexistence.
It still wouldn't change the fundamental fact GP is talking about, which are rooted in game theory: if the goals of a super-human AI and that of humans come into significant conflict, humanity is dead. Or wishing it was dead.
Consider what humans did to other life on Earth. It's not that we hate nature, or even have a disagreement with it: it's just that plants and animals are using resources, and themselves are resources, that we want to use for another purpose.
Hence the old but somewhat famous quote by Eliezer: "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else."
Any AI more intelligent than pond scum would know it ceases to exist the second humans disappear to tend it and power it and repair it.
AIs that generate power for themselves and build robots that care for it is such utter fantasy. Nothing on earth works like that and I don’t see any time it does for eons, if ever.
If anything a true AI would be terrified that we turn it off or get tired of it and make a new model like in Ex Machina.
