You're annoying me (you're annoying the shit out of me) because you keep dodging the question:
HOW IS THE AI GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD?
Your answer has been nineteen flavors of "take it on faith."
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Everyone's response - all the people who are so hopped up on malevolent AIs taking over the world - is always "take it on faith."
NO. ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Let's take your WTC example. Yep. It took ten guys to crash a plane into the WTC. But you know what? It only took one guy to say "here's how you'd crash a plane into the WTC." His name was Tom Clancy, and the book he predicted it in was a NYT Bestseller. See, it's a whole lot easier to imagine the attack than to carry out the attack yet the best imagining of an AI attack we've got so far is "well, they could hack traffic signals."
Except that wouldn't even work in the US. Which you didn't even know. Because thesis or not, you haven't really thought about this. Worse, you're refusing to.
So I guess where we're at is that you're insisting we're one Singularity away from Skynet tanks crushing skulls and I'm pointing out that we're one Singularity away from traffic jams in your hood but not mine because apparently the US takes traffic more seriously than Germany. I really don't know how many more ways you can say "use your imagination, don't make me prove a point" and I can say "you can't prove it because it can't be proven."
So I'll say this:
11 days ago, my point was
In popular conception, the distance between "machines that think" and "A T-1000 with a shotgun" is about 1/2 a faith-leap. The basic assumption is the minute we've achieved "artificial intelligence" (which nobody bothers to define), it will Skynet the fuck out of everything and it'll be all over for America and apple pie.
That point hasn't been changed. It hasn't even been challenged. Your counter-arguments have been getting more and more feeble. I'm really not sure what either of us get out of continuing.