"Evil" can mean a pretty broad array of things, though. There's a lot of actions it could take that at least some people would call evil, even if causing distress or breaking deontological rules isn't the end goal.

The way I see it there's 3 possible AGIs: a paperclip optimiser, an AI that obeys somebody, and a somewhat-benevolent AI. The second one is the worst, that's where the exterminism you mentioned is pretty inevitable (although the elites might keep a few people as sex slaves or some such fucked-up thing). Then comes the paperclip optimiser, which doesn't worry about the bullshit that drives human atrocities but doesn't have a very inspiring actual goal, and then the attempt at benevolence. I suspect the set of ethical theories most people always agree with is the empty set, but a utilitarian AI would be much preferable to the other two even if it does forced organ donation sometimes.

People talk about an AI that obeys everyone somehow, but if you think about it for a moment that doesn't really make sense. We can barely vote on a single dollar figure for something successfully.

“Machines aren’t capable of evil. Humans make them that way.”

I agree, but only for existing technologies.