Some people would consider it as a living proof of the Bioweapons Engineer existence.
First, humans aren't able to create anything like that. Current level of science is far from fully understanding how this thing actually work and why it doesn't destroy itself.
Second, if you're thinking that HIV was developed as a bioweapon then you must consider that FIV (Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, a cat-specific equivalent of HIV) was artificially created as well. But why would bioweapon engineers need to infect your pet? It's pointless.
There is a reason why bioweapon research facilities such as Plum Island are almost always called 'animal disease centers'. It's not just silly propaganda or a funny joke to the staff and faculty. They really do study the fuck out of the diseases which often have been first identified in animal stock, and animals are used extensively in the research and production. Weaponization involves figuring out how to get them to infect a target species (usually homo sapien) and selection of desirable parameters of the infection. 'gain of function.'
People have a mis-understanding that bioweapons always have a high lethality. Very often such a thing would be a bug rather than a feature. Plenty of weapons already fit that need. Non-lethal bioweapons can have a much greater overall impact if they can be deployed over a broad target and over many years. Subtle effects go undetected but have a huge overall impact.
It is also worth note that most leaderships (rightly) consider the biggest threat to their position to be the population they lead and expend a lot of the resources at their disposal in dealing with the threat. Further, the population of ones own country is a much more exploitable source of wealth. With the right kind of medical system, a modestly sick individual can still perform functions in the economy but can be milked by the medical/industrial complex for the rest of their life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT6gCqulCokYour hypothesis may seem logical but it lacks a factual evidence. Even if we would guess that all statements are correct then we still have alternative, i. e. natural selection. Which is better because of Occam's razor. And, unlike your hypothesis, this alternative may be proven be wrong so it does satisfy the Popper's criteria. That can't be said about your hypothesis of weaponization of some naturally occurring virus by the people who made a precious illusion of their stupidity.