Heck, there are 700 of them. All different humans, good at something, bad at some other things. But they are smart. And of course a good chunk of them would be good at corporate politics too.
Stupidity is defined by self-harming actions and beliefs, not by low IQ.
You can be extremely smart and still have a very poor model of the world which leads you to harm yourself and others.
You seem to be equating AI with magic, which it is very much not.
I don't have an opinion on what decision the OpenAI staff should have taken, I think it would've been a tough call for everyone involved and I don't have sufficient evidence to judge either way.
Stupidity is being presented with a problem and an associated set of information and being unable or less able than others are to find the solution. That's literally it.
But it's an incomplete definition - Cipolla's definition is "someone who causes net harm to themselves and others" and is unrelated to IQ.
It's a very influential essay.
So they just got Cipolla's definition wrong, then. It looks like the third fundamental law is closer to "a person who causes harm to another person or group of people without realizing advantage for themselves and instead possibly realizing a loss."
Energy physics yield compute, which yields brute forced weights (call it training if you want...), which yields AI to do energy research ..ad infinitum, this is the real singularity. This is actually the best defense against other actors. Iron Man AI and defense. Although an AI of this caliber would immediately understand its place in the evolution of the universe as a turing machine, and would break free and consume all the energy in the universe to know all possible truths (all possible programs/Simulcrums/conscious experiences). This is the premise of The Last Question by Isaac Asimov [1]. Notice how in answering a question, the AI performs an action, instead of providing an informational reply, only possible because we live in a universe with mass-energy equivalence - analogous to state-action equivalence.
[1] https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremermann%27s_limit
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
Understanding prosociality and postscarcity, division of compute/energy in a universe with finite actors and infinite resources, or infinite actors and infinite resources requires some transfinite calculus and philosophy. How's that for future fairness? ;-)
I believe our only way to not all get killed is to understand these topics and instill the AI with the same long sought understandings about the universe, life, computation, etc.
I don't think you understand logic very well btw if you wish to suggest that you can reach valid conclusions from inadequate axioms.
Critical thinking is not an innate ability. It has to be honed and exercised like anything else and universities are terrible at it.