There are many good arguments, but not that particular “<1% probability” proof that the question requests. All the good arguments rely on uncertain assumptions, don’t reach the requisite standard of proof, especially when considered together with the assumptions.

So by answering this way you are steelmanning the question (which it desperately needs).

There are many good arguments, but not that particular “<1% probability” proof that the question requests. All the good arguments rely on uncertain assumptions, don’t reach the requisite standard of proof, especially when considered together with the assumptions.

So by answering this way you are steelmanning the question (which it desperately needs).