OMFGscience

There's nothing specific to GMOs that makes them patentable. Hybrid seeds can be patented, irradiated seeds can be patented, both of which are allowed to be labeled as organic.

I didn't. But there's no evidence that any approved GMOs are harmful in any way.

The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually matter, in response to a successful marketing campaign by the competition?

Computer scientists rediscover punctuated equilibrium?

Obviously we don't actually need a superintelligence to make paper clips, it's just an example to illustrate that an AI won't do what you want it to do if you program its motivations incorrectly. If you haven't programmed an AI to place sufficient importance on human life, and then tell it to maximize paperclip production, it could take that as its primary goal and see humans as made from raw material it could use to make more paperclips. It may know that you want the paper clips for human use, but does it have any reason to care if it hasn't been made with that as part of its goal system?