The most direct way to make a strong argument for xrisk is to convincingly describe a detailed concrete pathway to extinction. The more concretely you describe the steps, the better the case for xrisk. But of course, any “progress” in improving such an argument actually creates xrisk.
I think that’s a false dichotomy: a good argument is nowhere as detailed as a basic blueprint.
I think that’s a false dichotomy: a good argument is nowhere as detailed as a basic blueprint.