>So on technological grounds, at least, there seem to be no strong reasons to think that the distribution of war outcomes continues all the way to the level of human extinction.
Is this possibly missing a 'not' in there? It seems like you just concluded that there was no reason to think there was a cap on how many deaths could come from advanced military AI systems, then conclude there's no strong reason to think the distribution continues all the way to extinction?
Thanks for the kind words!
Thanks also for the suggestion re: narrating the full document, rather than the summary. This does seem like it would be valuable in many cases and feedback like this is likely to push us in that direction :)