One reason to be pessimistic about the "goals" and/or "values" that future ASIs will have is that "we" have a very poor understanding of "goals" and "values" right now.  Like, there is not even widespread agreement that "goals" are even a meaningful abstraction to use.  Let's put aside the object-level question of whether this would even buy us anything in terms of safety, if it were true.  The mere fact of such intractable disagreements about core philosophical questions, on which hinge substantial parts of various cases for and against doom, with no obvious way to resolve them, is not something that makes me feel good about superintelligent optimization power being directed at any particular thing, whether or not some underlying "goal" is driving it.

Separately, I continue to think that most such disagreements are not True Rejections, rather than e.g. disbelieving that we will create meaningful superintelligences, or that superintelligences would be able to execute a takeover or human-extinction-event if their cognition were aimed at that.  I would change my mind about this if a saw a story of a "good ending" involving us creating a superintelligence without having confidence in its, uh... "goals"... that stood up to even minimal scrutiny, like "now play forward events a year; why hasn't someone paperclipped the planet yet?".