Is An Artificial Intelligence Revolt Inevitable?

Anxiety over artificial intelligence, and more particularly over the possibility of an eventual AI insurrection, is one of several concerns confined to the present age.  Some are against the creation of artificial intelligence out of concern about AI eclipsing human knowledge and ability.  At such a point, humans would be at a disadvantage, left vulnerable to the autonomous whims of machines.  Is there any legitimate substance to these fears?

Depending on the type of artificial intelligence in question, it is possible that AI would try to manipulate or harm humans.  However, this scenario is just that: a mere possibility.  That something is possible does not make it either true or probable.  For instance, it is possible that gravity could cease to keep my body on the surface of the earth.  While it would be imbecilic to deny that gravity could change or cease to exist, there is neither scientific evidence for this hypothetical occurrence nor logical proof that it must happen.

What could someone even appeal to as an argument against the creation of more realistic artificial intelligences, besides the mere possibility of an organized revolt?  Works of entertainment like The Matrix, Terminator, Age of Ultron, and Westworld?  Indeed, there is nothing but these two things--unrealized possibility and entertainment-driven anxiety--that they can appeal to!  There is nothing about Skynet that must become a reality outside of cinema.  Entertainment can only portray things which are at least hypothetically possible, but this does not necessarily mean that a scenario in entertainment is plausible.

Since an AI revolt cannot be the consequence of logical necessity, anyone who insists that it will prove an unavoidable result of developing AI technologies does not understand the matter.  Paranoia can be a powerful impulse, but it is not a sound basis for believing in anything.  It is something that must be confronted and evaluated.  If the fear corresponds to an demonstrable truth or probability, the concern is justified; if there is neither proof nor evidence of a thing, the paranoia is delusional.

There is no such thing as an inevitable artificial intelligence revolt, and thus there is no inherent danger in continuing research into the creation of more sophisticated AI.  There is such a thing as the slippery slope fallacy, a stance against something because of the mere possibility that some negative thing might result from it.  Any human invention could be misused or could result in either inconvenience or distaster.  Does this mean humans should not continue inventing?  This does not follow in any way!

It is not irrational to simply be afraid of a thing.  What a person fears is not always within their power to dictate, since it is possible to fear something without choice, even if a person knows that there is no objective basis for fearing the object of the terror.  However, it is irrational to oppose an entire technological development because of a subjective fear.