I think the probability of "prior to total human obsolescence, AIs will be seriously misaligned, broadly strategic about achieving long run goals in ways that lead to scheming, and present a basically unified front (at least in the context of AIs within a single AI lab)" is "only" about 10-20% likely, but this is plausibly the cause of about half of misalignment related risk prior to human obsolescence.
I'd want to break apart this claim into pieces. Here's a somewhat sketchy and wildly non-robust evaluation of how I'd rate these claims:
Assuming the claims are about most powerful AIs in the world...
"prior to total human obsolescence...
"AIs will be seriously misaligned"
If "seriously misaligned" means "reliably takes actions intended to cause the ruin and destruction of the world in the near-to-medium term (from our perspective)", I'd rate this as maybe 5% likely
If "seriously misaligned" means "if given full control over the entire world along with godlike abilities, would result in the destruction of most things I care about due to extremal goodhart and similar things" I'd rate this as 50% likely
"broadly strategic about achieving long run goals in ways that lead to scheming"
I'd rate this as 65% likely
"present a basically unified front (at least in the context of AIs within a single AI lab)"
For most powerful AIs, I'd rate this as 15% likely
For most powerful AIs within the top AI lab I'd rate this as 25% likely
Conjunction of all these claims:
Taking the conjunction of the strong interpretation of every claim: 3% likely?
Taking a relatively charitable weaker interpretation of every claim: 20% likely
It's plausible we don't disagree much about the main claims here and mainly disagree instead about:
The relative value of working on technical misalignment compared to other issues
The relative likelihood of non-misalignment problems relative to misalignment problems
The amount of risk we should be willing to tolerate during the deployment of AIs