It's kinda hilarious that current way of "limiting" AI is just a bunch of sentences telling it nicely what to not do.

That’s our first line of defense in limiting humans, too.

(With AI, as with humans, we have additional means of control, via imposed restrictions on access to resources and other remedies, should the “bunch of sentences” not produce the desired behavior.)

The issue of “can AIs that are plausible developments from current technology meaningfully be assigned obligations?” is a different one from “assuming an AI has obligations and the ability to reason what is necessary to meet them, will that necessarily cause it prioritize self-preservation as a prerequisite to all other obligations?”