Although I definitely think it is good to find a risk-skeptic who is willing to engage in such a debate
I don’t think there will be one person who speaks for all skeptical views (e.g., Erik Larsen vs. Yann LeCun vs. Gary Marcus);
I think meaningful progress could be made towards understanding skeptics’ points of view even if no skeptic wants to participate or contribute to a shared debate map/management system, so long as their arguments are publicly available (I.e., someone else could incorporate it for them).
Whatever people end up doing, I suspect it would be quite valuable if serious effort is put into keeping track of the arguments in the debate and making it easier for people to find responses for specific points, and responses to those responses, etc. As it currently stands, I think that a lot of traditional text-based debate formats are prone to failure modes and other inefficiencies.
Although I definitely think it is good to find a risk-skeptic who is willing to engage in such a debate
I don’t think there will be one person who speaks for all skeptical views (e.g., Erik Larsen vs. Yann LeCun vs. Gary Marcus);
I think meaningful progress could be made towards understanding skeptics’ points of view even if no skeptic wants to participate or contribute to a shared debate map/management system, so long as their arguments are publicly available (I.e., someone else could incorporate it for them).