It's essentially Pascal's wager.

What probability for extinction do you consider to be low enough that it effectively becomes a Pascalian wager? Pascal was also writing about a single person's fate (AFAICT), whereas this is about the fate of everyone.

Not parent, but perhaps it was an analogous interpretation: believe in AGI and AGI is possible vs believing in AGI and AGI is not possible, likewise for not believing.

Perhaps some people think believing in the possibility of AGI is justified because they are positioning themselves to benefit from it (with no real loss if it doesn't pan out) vs acting like it's not possible then missing out if it is.

Meanwhile, others of us that recognize its limitations see their enthusiasm as just wanting to believe so badly.

The point is that the probability doesn’t matter because the outcome, total human extinction, is given infinite weight.

Maybe Pascal argued that way for the human soul, but I don't think the AI risk argument needs infinite value to be at stake. Would you say that preparing for the risk of a solar flare or an asteroid impact is also a Pascalian wager?