I guess I failed to understand the point. What I mean is that arguing that AIs can't be a problem (something that I'd like to be true, but probably isn't) because companies already are superhuman does not make sense, for some pretty simple mathematical reasons.
The point is a philosophical argument about what constitutes a powerful non-human agent. Nobody is arguing that corporations are literal thinking computers.
> arguing that AIs can't be a problem ... because companies already are superhuman
Quite the opposite, actually: corporations can potentially be very destructive "paperclip optimizers".