Yes, in the sense that I think what you said describes how the views differ. It’s not how I would justify the view; I think the fundamental reason why classical view is inaccurate is that
Existential risk refers to the probability of a set of outcomes, and those outcomes are not defined in terms of their cause.
I.e., there is nothing in the definition of existential risk that Bostrom or anyone else gives that references the cause.
So, this is about taking the causes seriously even when they are not the direct final link in the chain before extinction?
Yes, in the sense that I think what you said describes how the views differ. It’s not how I would justify the view; I think the fundamental reason why classical view is inaccurate is that
I.e., there is nothing in the definition of existential risk that Bostrom or anyone else gives that references the cause.