So within an hour, this received a downvote of negative 8, without explanation. That’s alright, but I don’t really understand how it wouldn’t be beneficial to consider AGI risk from every possible perspective and framework--including new perspectives and frameworks--given the fact that this is an existential concern. 

I’m not sure if people consider the simulation hypothesis to be “fringe,” but David Chalmers isn’t exactly a “fringe” philosopher, and he has written extensively about the hypothesis. I limited my citation to one page number in Chalmers' book, since more precise citations were requested in a response to a previous LW post, but you could argue that most of the book is related to the simulation hypothesis. (For example, chapter two is titled “What is the simulation hypothesis?” and chapter five is titled “Is it likely that we’re in a simulation?”)

Anyway, as usual, the downvotes are alright, but any explanation would be helpful (presuming the explanation doesn’t assert I suggested something that I didn’t suggest). Thanks for reading this!