Aren't humans/biological life a counterexample? Simple bacteria are clearly maximizing agents, and cyanobacteria did infact almost destroy all life on earth by filling the entire planet with toxic oxygen.
We've known how to improve ourselves via selective breeding yet vanishingly few humans are proponents. We and and other intelligent animals have a wide variety of goals, and even animals sometimes share food across species.
The evidence just doesn't seem to support this concept of Basic Drives. If anything, the evidence (and common sense) seems to suggest that the more intelligent the organism, the more easily and more often it ignores its basic drives.
Intellectual capability and alignment are orthogonal - the former doesn’t get you the latter for free.
Most people new to this issue don’t intuitively grasp this at first.
Remember that ML models are also subject to selection. If they're not useful/beneficial to us, we stop running them.
An important concept behind this is Omohundro's Basic Drives. Any maximizing agent with a goal will try to acquire more resources, resist being shut off, resist having its goal changed, create copies of itself, and improve its algorithm. If it is possible to maximize its goal in a way that will not guarantee humanity's flourishing, then we all die, guaranteed.
If you want something more spelled out, I'll refer to Tim Urban's explanation. It's quite long, but is about as detailed as you can ask for. https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revol...