The work that most (even highly skilled) people do is more like playing chess or writing a novel than proving theorems.
Not pushing the boundaires of human knowledge, but requiring skills which are not easily learned without experience and within which there is a huge variation in human ability.
Can you really say that the existence of an agent (or a million) matching or exceeding the 100th percentile in many different skills would not be a massive change?
Superhuman chess playing A.I. is a reality today.
I don't think it changes the human condition.
If any kind of "Terminator" threatens the human race I think it is something that can understand individual psychology and seduce anyone.
I thought that the problems solved by Bethe, Feynman and their cohort were the easy problems and the current generation is struggling with problems that were much harder, possibly impossible to solve.
One example is the problem of chaotic dynamics with six degrees of freedom as opposed to four degrees of freedom. With four degrees of freedom you have unbroken KAM tori that partition the phase space into areas that it will stay in forever. In 6 DOF or more, some tori are still unbroken but it's possible for the system to go around them, so even in a phase space region that has a lot of intact tori (e.g. the motion of the planets around the Sun) you can't prove anything for the long term (e.g. the Earth doesn't get ejected from the solar system.)
Look also at examples such as the halting problem, Godel's theorems, etc. I'm not sure if a "higher intelligence" could actually solve that many problems we can't because the problems are intractable.