This is a genuinely uncertain question worth thinking carefully about rather than just speculating dramatically.

## What we can reasonably say

**The question contains assumptions worth examining:**
- "AGI" isn't precisely defined - different researchers mean different things
- "Rule the world" conflates many different scenarios
- 2100 is far enough away that predictions are highly speculative

## Actual range of serious expert opinion

**More concerned perspectives:**
- Some researchers (Bostrom, early Yudkowsky) argue misaligned AI poses existential risks
- Concentration of AI power could enable authoritarian control by humans or systems

**More skeptical perspectives:**
- Current AI progress may plateau before general intelligence
- "Ruling the world" requires capabilities far beyond current trajectories
- Historical predictions of transformative tech timelines have often been wrong
- Political and social resistance would be substantial

## Honest assessment

- **Nobody reliably knows** - including leading AI researchers
- The question mixes technical prediction with political/social outcomes
- Most dramatic scenarios require many things going wrong simultaneously
- Human institutions have shown resilience against various takeover scenarios

## What actually matters more
- How humans **choose** to govern AI development
- Whether safety research keeps pace with capabilities
- Distribution of AI access and power

What specifically concerns you about this - the technical capability question or the power/governance question?
