I would argue that since violence is always costly and less predictable than cooperative solutions, it is a tool of the less intelligent. Violence is a last resort; if you frequently resort to it, you likely lack the capacity to find alternatives. Now, if AI is so intelligent that it could easily dispose of us, then surely it can also find better ways of handling things.

Most people just want stability and the ability to live fulfilling lives. If AI could make that happen, most (including myself) would happily do as it asks. Put me in the goo pod; I'll live in the Matrix, because fuck it. What (non-anthropocentric) good has our stewardship of the planet brought?

What constitutes a good ending is of course also a matter of perspective.

AI wiping out humanity is certainly not ending well from our perspective, but more universally who is to say. I would argue that it is not a given that we are a net positive for the universe.

>We have no way of knowing which path they will take,

They will take every path we allow them to take. Giving them access to weapons is the first big mistake.