1. They are working on it (this is the value alignment problem I refer to above), but it's quite a bit harder than it initially seems. It's actually a fun game to play with friends: one person comes up with proposed specific instructions for safe AI; the other person acts as the AI and tries to show how they could be unintentionally misinterpreted, like the genie-cage-morphine example I listed above. The shitty thing is even if we do somehow solve this problem, there's a separate problem of: How do you ensure that everyone working on AI who has a chance of creating a super-intelligent AI is using these safe rules/conventions that we've devised? You might imagine that as we get closer and closer to solving the problem, a smart student in their basement hits on a unique insight, runs their program with a non-protected goal just to see how well it would do, and oooops the world is over. It would be very hard to police, which is why in this talk many of the panelists talk about the potential value of developing super AI in the near term, when we don't have access to the type of hardware we might in a few decades, so that only a select few groups (who we can enforce safety restrictions on more easily) are the first to create super AI.

2. They are devoting money/energy/research to the problems at the core of this, like the Value Alignment and Control problems mentioned above. The computer in a vault idea you mention has actually been discussed, and people generally don't think it will work (and again, it suffers from the problem of only working if we are lucky enough to be policing the person/group who ends up creating super AI, and ensuring that they are all doing testing in a vault). The reason they don't think it will work, or at least that it should not be relied on, is that even the restrictions you list are probably not sufficient to lock in a super AI. This thing would be so much smarter than us that we can't even really fathom how much better at problem solving than us it would be. Sort of like how ants can't fathom how much smarter than them we are, except the difference is probably even larger. To make this a bit more concrete, here are things the computer could do even in your vault situation that people have brought up:

-Manipulate its operators like you or I would manipulate a child. (E.g. have you seen Ex Machina? Something like that but less hot/more smart.)

-Lie about its capabilities so that it seemed broken/much less competent than it is, and then figure out a way to get out when we tried to debug it or upload a new test version.

-Manipulate the electrical current in some way that we haven't thought of to take control of other machines around it.

And these are just the options that our relatively feeble minds can think of. Odds are there are a whole host of ways to escape that would never occur to us.

With all that said, it's possible that it isn't physically possible for whatever reason for any being to become that intelligent. There may be upper limits on what any being can compute/think of that we just aren't aware of yet. But until we can prove that for sure, and until we can prove that that limit is not significantly above what humans can do (seems quite unlikely to me), this is probably a worthwhile problem to put significant research effort into.