Ensuring the safe deployment of some technologies is beyond the reach of our present-day Science and Institutions.

We have collectively understood that human cloning and eugenics were dangerous technologies.
We realised their deployment was going to be catastrophically misaligned with human values, and have thus stopped pursuing them for the foreseeable future.

Indeed, ensuring that such technologies have a non-catastrophic impact requires a strong understanding of human psychology, human societies, geopolitics and morals; with institutions to reflect it, which we lack.

This is qualitatively different than solving toy moral puzzles and thought experiments.

Aligning superintelligence implies aligning a system that may autonomously develop and deploy more dangerous technologies, at least as dangerous as eugenics or human cloning.

I suggest this criterion to think about whether one trusts an entity to build superintelligence.
Would you trust it to deploy eugenics and cloning?
(As a reminder, fertility rates are enough to stump us.)

If one doesn't trust a company, the UN, a government or a specific group of nerds to manage eugenics or human cloning, then they shouldn't trust them to handle a superintelligence that can create and wield such technologies.

In the meantime, our working strategy to deal with such dangerous technologies is to ban them and harshly control their precursors.
It may suck and we must improve on it, but it is what it is, and it is what we should do with ASI until we get our shit together.