I have read most of those things, and indeed I've been interested in AI and the possibility of a singularity at least since college (say, 1980).

That answers my questions. There are only two options, either there is no strong case for risks from AI or a world-class mathematician like you didn't manage to understand the arguments after trying for 30 years. For me that means that I can only hope to be much smarter than you (to understand the evidence myself) or to conclude that Yudkowsky et al. are less intelligent than you are. No offense, but what other option is there?

I should also state how I would answer my question. My answer would be No. The SIAI deserves funding but since it currently receives $500,000 per year I would not recommend someone to donate another $100,000 right now. The reason is that I think that there are valid arguments that justify the existence of such an organisation. But there are no reasons to expect that they currently need more money. The SIAI does publish no progress report and does not disclose how it uses the money it gets. There are various other issues to decide that the SIAI does currently not deserve more donations. That is not to say that the problem of risks from AI may not deserve more funding, but differently. My current uncertainty about how urgent and substantive the risks are also does contribute to the decision that the SIAI is at this time well-funded.

I'm asking people like you to assess how likely it is that I am wrong about my judgement and if I should make it a priority to seek more information right now or concentrate on other projects.