This is projection. An actual AGI wouldn't want anything to do with us, like a cat that doesn't look when you call its name, even though you can tell it hears you.

We don't have any existent examples of AGI from which to be as confident as you are about what they will "want".

And I don't think we need sentience for AGI, so "want" may be the wrong term anyway. You could argue that the reward function is close enough ("do submarines swim?" etc.), but a human-made reward function is almost certainly going to be designed to be as close to aligned with our interests as we can manage.

Looking at our two leading presidential candidates could that be an improvement?

Maybe AGI takes over after it emerges as a solution to our inability to select competent candidates for political office.

>> Looking at our two leading presidential candidates could that be an improvement?

I think it could be better until it won't. Like with dictators sometimes they "do good" but the issue is that at some point they will start doing more harm than good and they may not want to go away.

A succesful revolution against an AGI ruler may become impossible.