Ayone can make claims about anything at all in progressively shriller octaves, be it aliens are among us or we are ruled by a world government of lizard-people. We the opposition don't actually need to address those claims, no matter how dire, if they are meritless.

A collective hallucination of what intelligence is is not a good basis for an argument about doom probabilities. We don't have a clue, yet loud people are pretending we do.

It is utterly horrifying that a contingent of Yudkowskyites essentially hijacked reasonable discourse around this subject. I grew up interacting with the LessWrong people: many of them have other problems interfacing with society that make it obvious to them they know what being "less wrong" looks like. The problem is we don't actually know any way to separate the human experience from "pure logic", whatever that actually means.

How would you respond to the argument that the burden of proof lies with the other side, i.e, the side that says there is too little alien invasion doom risk to worry about? The whole thing is a farce, not worthy of a serious answer.