The whole idea of double-blind test (and really, the whole scientific methodology) is based on one simple thing: even the most experienced and informed professionals can be comfortably wrong.
We'll only know when we see it. Or at least when several independent research groups see it.
That's the human hallucination problem. In science it's a very difficult issue to deal with, only in hindsight you can tell which papers from a given period were the good ones. It takes a whole scientific community to come up with the truth, and sometimes we fail.
So: we might be close to a breakthrough, that breakthrough could get out of hand, then it could kill a billion+ people.
Among knowledgeable people who have concerns in the first place, I'd say giving the probability of a very bad outcome of cumulative advances as "very low" is a fringe position. It seems to vary more between "significant" and "close to unity".
There are some knowledgeable people like Yann LeCun who have no concerns whatsoever but they seem singularly bad at communicating why this would be a rational position to take.
Myself, I think I count as a massive optimist, as my P(doom) is only about 15% — basically the same as Russian Roulette — half of which is humans using AI to do bad things directly.