The gist of this is that ff those who are concerned with AGI catastrophe are wrong but try to prevent the perceived looming disaster then they might do bad thin

The gist of this is that ff those who are concerned with AGI catastrophe are wrong but try to prevent the perceived looming disaster then they might do bad things. Bad because they caused harm to people by were unnecessary. I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but the author side-steps the most important dynamic here, which is whether there really are extreme risks from AGI. The closest we see to an argument for why we should share the author's implied assumption that AGI won't be a problem is just flippant remarks by framing those who argue that there are great risk are "believers".