Pursuing the goal necessarily results in human extinction and tiling the universe with computronium and I call that Bad but he should still answer "No".

As I've asked elsewhere to resoundingly negative results:

Why is it automatically "bad" to create an AGI that causes human exinction? If I value ever-increasingly-capable sentience... why must I be anthropocentric about it? If I were to view recursively improving AGI that is sentient as a 'child' or 'inheritor' of "the human will" -- then why should it be so awful if humanity were to be rendered obsolete or even extinct by it?

I do not, furthermore, define "humanity" in so strict terms as to require that it be flesh-and-blood to be "human". If our FOOMing AGI were a "human" one -- I personally would find it in the range of acceptable outcomes if it converted the available carbon and silicon of the earth into computronium.

Sure, it would suck for me -- but those of us currently alive already die, and over a long enough timeline the survival rate for even the clinically immortal drops to zero.

I ask this question because I feel that it is relevant. Why is "inheritor" non-Friendly AGI "bad"?

(This applies even if I go all cognitive-realism on him and say he is objectively wrong and that he is, in fact, trying to make sure a Bad Singularity happens.)

Caveat: It is possible for me to discuss my own motivations using someone else's valuative framework. So context matters. The mere fact that I would say "No" does not mean that I could never say "Yes -- as you see it."