(The paperclip maximizer thought experiment may be silly, but it's a useful sanity check whenever you start anthropomorphizing as-yet-hypothetical AIs.)
I am convinced, that intelligence, as life is a gradient. I do not think that an AI with super-human intelligence would be necessarily kind to us, but I do think that even if we would be perceived by it as an obstacle for reaching its own goals, that does not mean that the only solution it would find is to eradicate us. What some people (Tusk, Gates) do not like about AI is that they do not want anything more powerful than themselves, that would take the level of control they have from them. And that's why they are preaching against it everywhere.
Or ridicule the way that we designed it, at which point it may decide to correct our mistakes. If we can program it, and it is smarter than us, than presumably it can program a smarter it.
That scenario could be harmless, or it could be very dangerous. I expect that as soon as we start to get close to this sort of achievement, we'll start to see at least informal "Turing Police". Groups of people who task themselves with preventing the ascension of strong AI (or at least construct physical safeguards to kill the host hardware in the case of an emergency.)