I don't think #2 as an argument "just relies on stretching questionable analogies". I think the point of this argument is that you have to consider the prior an

I don't think #2 as an argument "just relies on stretching questionable analogies". I think the point of this argument is that you have to consider the prior and correct for it. If I do a scientific experiment and reach a conclusion and that someone says that past experiment observed the same thing but it would have been wrong to conclude what I've concluded, it is not a "stretch to a questionable analogy", it is just showing that I cannot jump to that conclusion so easily. As I've said in another comment, for me, one missing thing is: for every technology, there are "incorrect worriers". The question is: where are they for AI? Even if the worry is real, you will have people who are worrying without good reason. You will have a "background noise". I see few differences between the AI dangers and the climate crisis. One of them is that the climate crisis is not coming from a new technology hype. It's not like we had a "Pollution bubble" with people explaining how the pollution will be transformative to our society and two weeks later, people raising concerns. What happened with the climate crisis was extremely slow, and therefore cannot be explained by people fantasizing on hypothetical impacts of a new technology. Another difference is that the danger of an intelligent AI are raised by a lot of people, but a big part of them appears to have similar ideological biases on how they view the world. Some people working in the field who tend to also not have the same view are raising different concerns (for example saying that AGI is still very far away and maybe not even reachable and that bad usage of current AI is more worrying) that seems less influenced by a very specific and peculiar way of seeing the world.