The current state of evidence IS NOT sufficient to scare people up to the point of having nightmares

You appear to be suggesting that Eliezer should censor presentation of his thoughts on the subject so as to prevent people from having nightmares. Spot the irony! ;)

and ask them for most of their money.

Eliezer asks people for money. That hardly makes him unique. Neither he nor anyone else is obliged to get your permission before they ask for donations in support of their cause. It seems to me that you expect more from the SIAI than you do from other well meaning organisations simply because there is actually a chance that the cause may make a significant long term difference. As opposed to virtually all the rest - those we know are pointless!

What if someone came along making coherent arguments about some existential risk about how some sort of particle collider might destroy the universe? I would ask what the experts think who are not associated with the person who makes the claims. What would you think if he simply said, "do you have better data than me"? Or, "I have a bunch of good arguments"? If you say that some sort of particle collider is going to destroy the world with a probability of 75% if run, I'll ask you for how you came up with these estimations. I'll ask you to provide more than a consistent internal logic but some evidence-based prior.

I rather suspect that if all those demands were meant you would go ahead and find new rhetorical demands to make.

So take my word for it, I know more than you do, no really I do, and SHUT UP. -- Eliezer Yudkowsky (Reference)

You have to list your primary propositions on which you base further argumentation, from which you draw conclusions and which you use to come up with probability estimations stating risks associated with former premises. You have to list these main principles so anyone who comes across claims of existential risks and a plead for donation, can get an overview. Then you have to provide the references, if you believe they give credence to the ideas, so that people see that all you say isn't made up but based on previous work and evidence by people that are not associated with your organisation.

That quote is out of context. While I do happen to hold Eliezer's behavior in that context in contempt, the way the quote is presented here is misleading. It is not relevant to your replies and only relevant to the topic here by virtue of Eliezer's character.

Is smarter than human intelligence possible in a sense comparable to the difference between chimps and humans?

This is a community devoted to refining the art of rationality. How is it rational to believe the Scary Idea without being able to tell if it is more than an idea?

Speak for yourself. I don't have the difficulty comprehending the premises either the ones you have questions here or the others required to make an adequate evaluation for the purpose of decision making.

Neither I nor Eliezer and the SIAI need to force understanding of the Scary Idea upon you for it to be rational for us to place credence on it. The same applies to other readers here. That is not to say that more work producing the documentation of the kind that you describe would not be desirable.