I don't think Randall Munroe would argue others are dumber than he is, only that he's seeing a scenario that is not (as frequently) reflected in fiction and thought experiments as the classic AI gains sentience, escapes containment and takes over scenario. I'd point to Linus' Law, Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow. (Wikipedia notes the law's validity is confirmed empirically, but refuted in analysis.) This applies to more than software. Right now, election enthusiasts in the US are combing election law and procedure for ways the November election can be thrown, and ways to counter that scenario quickly. I was thinking about the misprogramming scenario of AI escape. This implies hyperintelligent AI is dangerous even when everyone using it is benign and has non-adversarial intentions. Essentially an AI will need to be coded with an ethics system such as that of a general (or high-ranking soldier in the US) who deliberates on operational action and its consequences, whether the operation is legal, or would cause undue harm in its execution. Right now, AI in its current development is... whimsical, at best. That is to say, it ignores rules the way it hallucinates facts. And AI can be manipulated to ignore rules through adversarial input, so AI is not ready to operate dangerous machinery.

Did jou believe what happened next, though?