I don't see how this is relevant to the issue. Sure, an average organization is smarter than an average human, but it is not nearly as smart as a smart human, let alone a foomed AI.
Well, the idea that a single smart machine will take over the world because it will comprehensively trounce humans makes no sense. Smart machines are likely to compete with other smart machines, much as they do today.
The project of Friendly AI would benefit from being approached in a much more down-to-earth way. Discourse about the subject seems to be dominated by a set of possibilities which are given far too much credence:
Add up all of that, and you have a great recipe for enjoyable irrelevance. Negate every single one of those ideas, and you have an alternative set of working assumptions that are still consistent with the idea that Friendly AI matters, and which are much more suited to practical success:
The simplest reason to care about Friendly AI is that we are going to be coexisting with AI, and so we should want it to be something we can live with. I don't see that anything important would be lost by strongly foregrounding the second set of assumptions, and treating the first set of possibilities just as possibilities, rather than as the working hypothesis about reality.
[Earlier posts on related themes: practical FAI, FAI without "outsourcing".]