No.

We mostly defer the question of whether machines can be creative until Chapter 3. However, here we will say this: Machines do not need to have some fatal flaw that balances them out against humans, such that the indomitable human spirit has a chance of winning.

If dodo birds had possessed their own movie industry, then the scripts dodos wrote about the human invasion of their island of Mauritius might have had the humans’ guns and steel be compensated for by human disadvantages. Perhaps the humans’ intelligence-induced existential angst causes them to freeze up in despair at the last minute, just long enough for the heroic dodos to counterattack and peck them all to death.

This is perhaps a story that dodos would find satisfying: that intelligence cannot possibly be a net military advantage over strong beaks, that the humans’ bigger brains must have some fatal flaw that lets the proud dodos win after all.

In reality, the humans’ apparent advantages are actual advantages. The downsides of human brains are not net downsides in a military conflict with bird brains. The contest between humans and dodos ends up uneven, and that is that.

Even when humans fight other humans, machine guns are enough of an advantage that an army with machine guns usually beats an army without them. There are rare exceptions to this rule, and people love to recount them because the exception is a more fun story than the norm. But exceptions occur in real life much less often than they occur in stories.

We would predict the same about advanced AIs with vast memories and minds, that can copy themselves thousands of times over and think at ten thousand times the speed of a human; minds that can reason more validly, and generalize faster and more accurately from fewer harsh lessons, and improve themselves.

It’s not a trick question, and there will not be an amazing plot twist, much as we would like there to be.