Your original post didn't just posit a "dystopian" future. "...even the overwhelming majority AI experts coming out and saying there is at least 20% chance of a global catastrophe or even risk of extinction".
You're the one bringing up the prospect of extinction. Extinction! And a 20% chance at that. So no, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask about how we arrive at that outcome. Because there's a massive distinction between "dystopian" and "extinction".
No I’m not “the one” bringing it up, the experts and the people asking them and publishing their words are, and you seize on the most hard-to-substantiate claims first, and ignore the rest. Great debate technique for realtime debates, but this is HN and I can reply to focus the point.
My main concern for the next 5 years is that the Internet is going to become a dark forest where you can’t trust anything, it will be impossible to discern fake stuff, and even if it was, the botswarms will gang up to take care of any dissent.
That alone is extremely plausible and scary. Every single institution we have relies on the inefficiency of an attacker. Let alone swarms of attackers that any member of the institution can run instead of themselves, and can be subverted to bring about ANY goal, by who knows behind the scenes.
You're the one bringing up the prospect of extinction. Extinction! And a 20% chance at that. So no, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask about how we arrive at that outcome. Because there's a massive distinction between "dystopian" and "extinction".