Is AI Safety a Pascal's Mugging?

Pascal's wager is actually logically flawed. If there are two separate AGI invented, and you could only have chosen to invest in one, then where's the infinite capture of value? See this video on a reasonable argument about this: [VIDEO]

All of this discussion really makes me think of Robert Miles "Is ai safety a Pascal's mugging?" from 4 years(!) ago[0]. All of this discussion has been had by Ai safety researchers for years in my layman understanding... Maybe we can look to them for insight in to these questions? [0] [VIDEO]

The difference to Pascal’s wager is that with that the probability is vanishingly small, but given current progress the probability of AI causing an existential threat is actually quite high. You can’t just call anything that has very bad negative consequences Pascal’s wager Video about this: “Is AI Safety a Pascal’s Mugging?” [VIDEO]

Here’s a video called “Is AI safety a Pascal’s Mugging?”: [VIDEO] From what I remember the main point of the video is that kind of situation happens when the probability involved is vanishingly small, and all the events you listed don’t have a vanishingly small probability, so they are not Pascal’s wager situations, just a normal rational safety concerns with particularly high consequences