What Are The Chances of Actually Achieving FAI?

1%? Shouldn't your basic uncertainty over models and paradigms be great enough to increase that substantially?

"Friendliness" is a rag-bag of different things -- benevolence, absence of malevolence, the ability to control a system whether it's benevolent or malevolent , and so on. So the question is somewhat ill-posed.

As far as control goes, all AI projects involve an element of control, because if you can;t get the AI to do what you want, it is useless.So the idea that AI and FAI are disjoint is wrong.

I don't think it will be very difficult to impart your intentions into a sufficiently advanced machine

Counterargument: it will be easy to impart an approximate version of your intentions, but hard to control the evolution of those values as you crank up the power. E.g. evolution, humans, make us want sex, we invent condoms.

No-one will really care about this until it's way too late and we're all locked up in nice padded cells and drugged up, or something equally bad but hard for me to imagine right now.

Exactly ZERO.

...

Zero is not a probability! You cannot be infinitely certain of anything!

Nobody knows what's "friendly" (you can have "godly" there, etc. - with more or less the same effect).

By common usage in this subculture, the concept of Friendliness has a specific meaning-set attached to it that implies a combination of 1) a know-it-when-I-see-it isomorphism to common-usage 'friendliness' (e.g. "I'm not being tortured"), and 2) A deeper sense in which the universe is being optimized by our own criteria by a more powerful optimization process. Here's a better explanation of Friendliness than the sense I can convey. You could also substitute the more modern word 'Aligned' with it.

Worse, it may easily turn out that killing all humanimals instantly is actually the OBJECTIVELY best strategy for any "clever" Superintelligence.

I would suggest reading about the following:

Paperclip Maximizer Orthogonality Thesis The Mere Goodness Sequence. However, in order to understand it well you will want to read the other Sequences first. I really want to emphasize the importance of engaging with a decade-old corpus of material about this subject.

The point of these links is that there is no objective morality that any randomly designed agent will naturally discover. An intelligence can accrete around any terminal goal that you can think of.

This is a side issue, but your persistent use of the neologism "humanimal" is probably costing you weirdness points and detracts from the substance of the points you make. Everyone here knows humans are animals.

Most probably the problem will not be artificial intelligence, but natural stupidity.

Agreed.

I would only expect the latter if we started with a human-like mind. A psychopath might care enough about humans to torture you; an uFAI not built to mimic us would just kill you, then use you for fuel and building material.

(Attempting to produce FAI should theoretically increase the probability by trying to make an AI care about humans. But this need not be a significant increase, and in fact MIRI seems well aware of the problem and keen to sniff out errors of this kind. In theory, an uFAI could decide to keep a few humans around for some reason - but not you. The chance of it wanting you in particular seems effectively nil.)