I don't think this is really worth the read. If you're going to write a piece specifically as a takedown of a viewpoint, in this case, the view that AI risk is real and should be taken seriously, it's worth at mentioning your opponents finer points. There are lots of very brilliant PhD's who've spent their careers working on AI risk, to not even mention any of their arguments makes me feel as if the author is trying to argue against his own idea of what people mean by AI risk, instead reducing the entire idea to his own nomenclature of 'pseudo-traits'.

Reads a bit like an internet atheism blogpost of the early 2000s trying to take down religion through logic alone. Sure, through the specific parameters presented in the piece, the logic is sound, but there's so much more to the topic than what's covered. Presenting one's blogpost as if you've successfully individually debunked an entire field of research is a bit pompous, IMHO.