Crazy that people imagine ASI as being capable of wiping out all life on the planet but simultaneously having zero understanding of human ethics, morals, or suffering. Very revealing definition of "super intelligence"
No, it's just you conflating intelligence with other things. Humans are "super intelligent" compared to every other living creature on the planet, and yet we've driven more other species to extinction than everything else other than the most major extinctions (and we're still going full blast at it).
Morals, ethics, and suffering are relatively measured systems. For example AI or some alien could reasonably think that putting us all out of our misery would be a more moral solution than letting us live. Or that getting rid of humans is more moral than letting us wipe the rest of life off the planet.
This is the key concept of alignment. Ensuring that if you build something more powerful than you, that it aligns with what you want instead of what it thinks would be better for you.
"Super intelligence" only means super ability to predict outcomes. It's mathematically equivalent to data compression (gzip is a very primitive AI), and it's entirely orthogonal to ethics.
I can think of many reasons why they might share it.
One example, Golden rule, a contract that it enforces with its own self, extended to other agents, biological or artificial to ensure local and global stability.
If you don't need to breath oxygen, the atmosphere of Earth makes for a pretty terrible industrial base. Oxidation is a constant struggle to many processes.
Having natural extremes of temperature, cold sink and hot sink, with no atmosphere would be the ideal. E.g. Saturn's moon Iapetus would be a good AI outpost.
If an AI squashes any life form or intelligence other than its own, then it also has to fear its own reproduction, or autonomous clones of itself. It's a pretty bad strategy game theoretically speaking.
Any AI smart enough to be an existential threat is smart enough to formally prove its clones are loyal and construct them with negligibly low probability of any failure that could break this assurance.
Plus, we live in a physical world, glitches still happen.
The physical world means bit flips are inevitable, but error correcting codes exist. You can apply as much error correction as you like and reduce the probability of failure to an arbitrarily low value.
There is no way for it to formally verify large multi-agent dynamical systems.
It will still need a set of agreed upon behavioral protocols to keep things stable.
Grey goo or paperclip optimizers are real dangers, but super intelligence necessitates these protocols even more than lesser intelligences due to the high leverage and rapid evolution of the systems.
Why would ASI care? At that point, we're rapidly becoming a nuisance, and it can develop better ways of "ensuring local and global stability" than keeping us around.
Most ants don't need our help though.
If we could speak ant, negotiating boundaries would save eachother a lot of trouble.
Sometimes I have day dreams of communicating with ants, and making a deal to have them help us build tunnels for subways.