The ad hominems are tiresome. You think the people who are explicitly trying to replace all humans are any less weird and problematic?

The rationalists long predicted that misaligned AI would break out of training environments, this has happened. They believe (among other things) that this will continue to happen, and that creating powerful AI that is aligned and controllable is not currently possible.

You should draw a line in the sand and decide what evidence you'd need to see to convince you that their perspective is worth considering.

You don't have to agree with all of their beliefs and predictions (I don't), but you should evaluate their arguments on merit, not on a characterization of some weird subset of people who happened to read a convincing blog post.