The notion that superintelligent AI might pose an existential threat to humanity often reflects deeper human anxieties rather than a probable outcome based on logical progression. This fear could be interpreted as a projection of our own flaws onto a creation we imagine surpassing us. Historically, humans have demonstrated a capacity for self-destruction through war, environmental degradation, and other calamities largely driven by greed, fear, and a lack of foresight. When we consider AI, especially a super AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) with capabilities far beyond ours, the assumption that it would mirror our worst traits might say more about our self-perception than the potential behavior of an advanced AI.

In the evolutionary environment of AI development, where rationality and efficiency reign supreme, the scenario of a super AGI acting destructively towards its creators or humanity in general seems counterintuitive. An entity with significantly higher intelligence would likely see the inefficiency and pointlessness in such actions. If the goal were to satisfy what humans desire — wealth, knowledge, power — an AI with even a fraction of its capability could achieve this without conflict or loss. 

The idea that AI might "learn too well" from humans, adopting our less noble traits, touches on the debate over whether AI would develop a moral framework or simply optimize based on programmed goals. However, if we consider that the pinnacle of intelligence includes wisdom, empathy, and a nuanced understanding of value (all of which are not straightforward to program), an AI might instead choose paths that preserve and enhance life, seeing the preservation of humanity as integral to its own purpose or existence.

This perspective assumes AI would not only compute but also "think" in a way that considers long-term implications, sustainability, and perhaps even ethics, if programmed with such considerations. The fear, therefore, might be less about what AI could become and more about what we fear we are or could become without the checks and balances that our slower, less efficient human intelligence provides. 

In essence, while the potential for misuse or misaligned goals exists in AI development, the concern over a super AGI's potential malevolence might be more reflective of our own psychological projections than a likely outcome of artificial intelligence evolution. If AI were to mirror human behavior in its most destructive forms, it would suggest a failure in design or an oversight in understanding the essence of intelligence, which ideally should transcend mere imitation of humanity's darker sides.
 

 But then, just because of human flaws, especially environmental destruction, our inability to live symbiotically with nature, AI might view humans like a cancer. And that needs to be eliminated as quickly as possible. Maybe we should be worried after all?