First of all, General AI is science fiction and there's no detailed theory to suggest it is even possible, beyond hand wavy neuron/transistor-count models. All evidence so far suggests a human-like gestation/development is necessary, and such a development would negate any advantage such an AI would have over traditional human cyborgs.

Second, what about an AI would give them an advantage over cyborgs in building drone battalions? Aren't conventional human cyborgs doing that right now?

> Aren't conventional human cyborgs doing that right now?

Yes, it's annoying to me that people who believe AI to be extremely dangerous forget that people themselves can already do all that nasty stuff.

Who isn't assuming that? My whole point was that instead of having to recruit humans to enforce coercion, we can build our own soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines to do it.

Recruiting humans is exactly how we build our own soldiers at the moment. (Like they said in the army, "we do have a potato peeling machine - you're the latest model".) Why is another way of building soldiers bad? Only because it's new, and new is scary?

I never said it was, just that it was likely. I think people assume my top level post is negative. It's not negative, it's likely.

> there's no detailed theory to suggest it is even possible

Not much that suggests it's impossible either.