No, it's not Pascal's wager because Pascal's wager works even when the probabilities are tiny whereas Eliezer's p(doom) is about 99% unless AI "progress" is shu

No, it's not Pascal's wager because Pascal's wager works even when the probabilities are tiny whereas Eliezer's p(doom) is about 99% unless AI "progress" is shut down and kept shut long enough that the current crop of AI researchers is going to have to find something else to do for a career. In other words, it's not Pascal's wager if the very bad outcome is what you naturally expect to happen. And what I just wrote applies to not just Eliezer and his allies: I don't know a single person or a single published argument that has ever used Pascal's-wager-like argumentation to argue that AI "progress" needs to be stopped. Eliezer is the author of a blog post titled "Pascal's mugging", but that blog post and any follow-up discussion are completely silent on the dangers of AI.