But most AI researchers, including Pei Wang, do not buy the idea of AGI's that can quickly and vastly self-improve themselves to the point of getting out of control.

To rephrase into a positive belief statement: most AI researches, including Pei Wang, believe that AGI's are safely controllable.

Telling most people in the AI community about AI risks is similar to telling neuroscientists that their work might lead to the creation of a society of uploads which will copy themselves millions of times and pose a risk due to the possibility of a value drift. What reaction do you anticipate?

"Really? Awesome! Let's get right on that." (ref. early Eliezer)

Alternatively: "<distracted> Hmm? Yes, that's interesting... it doesn't apply to my current grant / paper, so... <insert topics from current grant / paper>."

Telling most people in the AI community about AI risks is similar to telling neuroscientists that their work might lead to the creation of a society of uploads which will copy themselves millions of times and pose a risk due to the possibility of a value drift. What reaction do you anticipate?

One neuroscientist thought about it for a while, then said "yes, you're probably right". Then he co-authored with me a paper touching upon that topic. :-)

(Okay, probably not a very typical case.)

But most AI researchers, including Pei Wang, do not buy the idea of AGI's that can quickly and vastly self-improve themselves to the point of getting out of control.

Well, that happening doesn't seem terribly likely. That might be what happens if civilization is daydreaming during the process - but there's probably going to be a "throttle" - and it will probably be carefully monitored - precisely in order to prevent anything untoward from happening.