So... Humans can use fossil fuels, generate electricity, maintain power lines, etc, but something smarter than humans can't? Why? I don't see the logic.

If you want to argue about current existing models (you mention Claude and problems modifying images), then sure, I'd agree with you!

The issue is not current models, but straightforward engineering evolution of them. It's like looking at the Wright Brothers plane and saying "sheesh, that will never get me from New York to Paris in 4 hours, that's just fantasy!" And remember, airplanes do not accelerate their own engineering, whereas pretty much all AI labs are already benefitting from AI in their own work to develop AI.

If you want to argue that no matter how much you engineer it, it will never be as smart as a human let alone smarter, then make a specific argument for why is that. I think you'd still be wrong but at least it would be interesting: ) But saying that you can defeat an actually smarter-than-human AI by just pulling the plug, because current models can't get a picture always right, is not a valid argument.

Until and unless the AI is as powerful as the "minds" in Iain Banks's Culture novels, I think the danger is less of AIs taking power (side note: current AIs are not intrinsically motivated to attain power), but of humans giving them power due to a kind of addiction.

Drugs need no will or intelligence at all to cause addiction, and similarly, AI does not need to be an evil genius to become overused and destructive.

It also doesn't have to be just one (humans hurting themselves with passive AI) or the other (selfish AI hurting humans). They'd work great together.

If we plug this AI into robotics, to automate the procurement and delivery of power, your argument goes away