The point is that you people are presenting an idea that is an existential risk by definition. I claim that it might superficially appear to be the most dangerous of all risks but that this is mostly a result of its vagueness.

If you say that there is the possibility of a superhuman intelligence taking over the world and all its devices to destroy humanity then that is an existential risk by definition. I counter that I dispute some of the premises and the likelihood of subsequent scenarios. So to make me update on the original idea you would have to support your underlying premises rather than arguing within already established frameworks that impose several presuppositions onto me.

Are you aware of what the most common EMPs are? Nukes. The computer that triggers the high explosive lenses is already molten vapor by the time that the chain reaction has begun expanding into a fireball.

What kind of computer indeed!