I can provide several links. And you choose those that are suitable. If suitable. The problem is that I retained not the most complete justifications, but the most ... certain and brief. I will try not to repeat those that are already in the answers here.

Ben Goertzel

Jürgen Schmidhuber

Peter J.Bentley

Richard Loosemore

Jaron Lanier and Neil Gershenfeld

Magnus Vinding and his list

Tobias Baumann

Brian Tomasik
 

Maybe Abram Demski? But he changed his mind, probably.
Well, Stuart Russell. But this is a book. I can quote.

I do think that I’m an optimist. I think there’s a long way to go. We are just scratching the surface of this control problem, but the first scratching seems to be productive, and so I’m reasonably optimistic that there is a path of AI development that leads us to what we might describe as “provably beneficial AI systems.”

There are also a large number of reasonable people who directly called themselves optimists or pointed out a relatively small probability of death from AI. But usually they did not justify this in ~ 500 words…

I also recommend this book.

My fault. I should just copy separate quotes and links here.

Glad you understood me. Sorry for my english!
Of course, the following examples themselves do not prove the opportunity to solve the entire problem of AGI alignment! But it seems to me that this direction is interesting and strongly underestimated. Well, someone smarter than me can look at this idea and say that it is bullshit, at least.

Partly this is a source of intuition for me, that the creation of aligned superintellect is possible. And maybe not even as hard as it seems.
We have many examples of creatures that follow the goals of someone more stupid. And the mechanism that is responsible for this should not be very complex.

Such a stupid process, as a natural selection, was able to create mentioned capabilities. It must be achievable for us.

It seems to me that the brains of many animals can be aligned with the goals of someone much more stupid themselves.
People and pets. Parasites and animals. Even ants and fungus.
Perhaps the connection that we would like to have with superintellence, is observed on a much smaller scale.

I apologize for the stupid question. But…

Do we have more chances to survive in the world, which is closer to Orwell's '1984'?
It seems to me that we are moving towards more global surveillance and control. China's regime in 2021 may seem extremely liberal for an observer in 2040.

I guess I missed the term gray goo. I apologize for this and for my bad English.
Is it possible to replace it on the 'using nanotechnologies to attain a decisive strategic advantage'?
I mean the discussion of the prospects for nanotechnologies on SL4 20+ years ago. This is especially:

My current estimate, as of right now, is that humanity has no more than a 30% chance of making it, probably less. The most realistic estimate for a seed AI transcendence is 2020; nanowar, before 2015.

I understand that since then the views of EY have changed in many ways. But I am interested in the views of experts on the possibility of using nanotechnology for those scenarios that he implies now. That little thing I found.

Nanosystems are definitely possible, if you doubt that read Drexler’s Nanosystems and perhaps Engines of Creation and think about physics. 

Is there something like the result of a survey of experts about the feasibility of drexlerian nanotechnology? Are there any consensus among specialists about the possibility of a gray goo scenario?

Drexler and Yudkowsky both extremely overestimated the impact of molecular nanotechnology in the past.

I do not know the opinions of experts on this issue. And I lack competence for such conclusions, sorry.

AlexNet was the first publication that leveraged graphical processing units (GPUs) for the training run

Do you mean the first of the data points on the chart? The GPU was used for DL long before AlexNet. References: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].