Is this supposed to be a strong rebuttal ? How does this invalidate the alignment problem? I'd really like to understand.

Humans, via climate change and environmental destruction, have wiped out, many, many species. To those species we've killed, we're the super intelligence, we understand their plight, we even have strong empathy, but we prioritize our own goals over that of the helpless and the stupider creaters.

How she can't see that same pattern could potentially repeat, I really, really don't know.

I don't think her point disproves all possible AI doom scenarios, but nothing can. They're too vague. It's all handwaving along the lines of "a malicious superintelligence will emerge without warning and somehow seize absolute power, and it's pointless to argue about how plausible any of that is, because sufficient intelligence can do anything in ways we can't imagine." This is why the biggest boosters of AI doom conjure absurd scenarios like AI secretly manufacturing a global swarm of insta-kill nanobots. They don't care about the details, they just think that sufficient intelligence will emerge without warning, be intractably malicious, and capable of anything by gestures vigorously methods.

AI doom critics are asking that we consider more soberly the actual probabilities of all these things happening, and on what time scale, and most importantly by what specific pathway.

The analogy to humans and animals actually illustrates the point. Humans didn't come to dominate the planet by intelligence and handwaving. It was an extremely slow process involving the interaction of many factors and contingent opportunities. Intelligence enabled language, tools, and eventually animal domestication and agriculture, all over hundreds of thousands of years. It wasn't like humans were destined for dominance because intelligence is a skeleton key to all material resources by any number of arbitrary, incomprehensible pathways.