Thanks! I agree—AI risk is at a much earlier stage of development as a field. Even as the field develops and experts can be identified, I would not expect a very high degree of consensus. Expert consensus is more achievable for existential risks such as climate science and asteroid impacts that can be mathematically modeled with high historical accuracy—there’s less to dispute on empirical / logical grounds.
A campaign to educate skeptics seems appropriate for a mature field with high consensus, whereas constructively engaging skeptics supports the advancement of a nascent field with low consensus.
Thanks! I agree—AI risk is at a much earlier stage of development as a field. Even as the field develops and experts can be identified, I would not expect a very high degree of consensus. Expert consensus is more achievable for existential risks such as climate science and asteroid impacts that can be mathematically modeled with high historical accuracy—there’s less to dispute on empirical / logical grounds.
A campaign to educate skeptics seems appropriate for a mature field with high consensus, whereas constructively engaging skeptics supports the advancement of a nascent field with low consensus.