Yudkowsky has spent more time on the topic than any of the others on this list, and has specific conclusions that are more idiosyncratic (especially the combination of views on many subjects), but the basic ideas are not so rare or privileged that they do not recur independently among many folk, including subject matter experts.
The argument is for the insights coming out of EY , and the privileging that EY is making for those hypotheses originated by others, aka cherrypicking what to advertise. EY is a good writer.
edit: concrete thought example: There is a drug A that undergoes many tests, with some of them evaluating it as better than placebo, some as equal to placebo, and some as worse to placebo. Worst of all, each trial is conducted on 1 person’s opinion. Comes in the charismatic pharmaceutical marketer, or charismatic anti-vaccination campaign leader, and starts bringing to attention the negative or positive trials. That is not good. Even if there’s both of those people.
For every one of those people you can have one, or ten, or a hundred, or a thousand, that dismissed your cause. Don’t go down this road for confirmation, that’s how self reinforcing cults are made.