None of that is even remotely plausible. You're just making things up with zero basis in actual science. Essentially you are making a religious argument. There's nothing wrong with religion per se, but don't expect the rest of us to take action based on your personal faith or irrational fears.
Just calling something a "religious argument" as a way to dismiss it is pretty silly.
And there's lots of actual, real scientists who think AI risk is a real thing we should be concerned with. Both within the field (e.g. Stuart Russel) and outside of the field (e.g. Stephen Hawking.) Are all of these scientists also talking with zero basis in actual science?
Artificial general intelligence does not exist (yet). As of today, there are no actual scientists in that field. But even smart people love to pontificate about things they don't understand.
