I'm replying in agreement with someone who already pointed out the obvious flaw in labelling any questioning of the inspirations or motivations of AI researchers as "Bulverism": none of the stuff they're saying is actually a claim that can be falsified in the first place!

I'm unconvinced by the position that the only valid means of casting doubt on a claim is through forensic examination of hard data that may be inaccessible to the interlocutor (like most people's bank accounts...), but whether that is or isn't a generally good approach is irrelevant here as we're talking about claims about courses of action to avoid hypothetical threats. I just noted it was a particularly useful rhetorical flourish when advocating acting on beliefs which aren't readily falsifiable, something CS Lewis was extremely proud of doing and certainly wouldn't have considered a character flaw!

Ironically, your reply also failed to falsify anything I said and instead critiqued my assumed motivations for making the comment. It's Bulverism all the way down!

Sometimes it makes good predictions, sometimes bad. But "advances in AI might lead to Armageddon" isn't the only conclusion induction can reach. Induction can also lead to people concluding certain arguments seem to a mashup of traditional millennialist "end times" preoccupations with the sort of sci-fi they grew up with, or that this looks a lot like a movement towards regulatory capture. Ultimately any (possibly even all) these inferences from past trends and recent actions can be correct, but none of them are falsifiable.

So I don't think it's a good idea to insist that people should be falsifying the idea that AI is a risk before we start questioning whether the behaviour of some of the entities on the list says more about their motivations than their words.