These self-deprecating arguments can only come from people who lack the basic understanding of how good we have it especially in the western world and how fragile our societies really are. Seriously, just look at Ukraine or Syria.
It can very much be worse by orders of magnitude. Just imagine this benevolent AI screwing up the electric grid or food production. Not to mention getting access to weapons, especially nuclear.
The water you drink, the food you eat, the energy that keeps you warm and mobile was made available to you by other people and by complex systems you (probably) don’t full understand. It can all be easily be taken from you. And most people (incl. myself) will have a very hard time surviving. So, no, it can definitely get a lot worse.
Surely, one might argue that a “smart enough singularity-level AI” can manipulate people to achieve its goals, but I don’t really see that feasible. Can intelligence really has all that much more “depth” to it? The most intelligent people on Earth are probably doing some obscure PHd research on some minimal government subsidies, people in control has very little intersection with them.
Basically, everything you point out I agree with, except replace "benevolent AI" with "myopic human".
AI (or other future technologies) really can be a path to extinction.
I also think it says more about our own human failings than the true risks of general AI, that we imagine it more likely to go rogue and kill us all instead of being more adept, more benevolent and capable at managing the complexity of society than our own feeble attempts.
From a species' perspective, you are fantastically wrong.
Cause: PEBKAC
Solution: Eradication of humanity.