I think that you might still be going with the exciting extremes, p(doom) style.
What about p(economic-collapse)? i.e. p(boring)
Where is the discussion by economists on the latter, as that appears to be exactly where we are headed, nearly for sure?
The Economic Nobel exists after all. Shouldn't there be a very public fight over the future on this topic?
Doesn't p(economic collapse) go without saying from the point gp makes?
I suppose it does. I was thinking that we just need to put this all into more obvious AI Implications for Dummies style terms, so that the non-tech public understands. Subject matter experts love to get overly-specific to the point where it all sounds silly to others. Meanwhile, your social feeds love extremes.
It seems like the boring truth just gets lost in the middle.
Using anthropogenic climate change as an analogy, people talk about: it's fake, or 1.5C meh, or maybe Venus! I only recently started to phrase the problem as "what if we just burn all known fossil fuel reserves?" - that is the economic path we are on. Turns out, if we do that, it's >6C and utter catastrophe that we are waltzing into. That should have been the story the entire time, right?
Communication on these topics is not easy, and seems important. We need much better PR for these difficult problems. It's tough just to describe what is plainly happening when there are trillion dollar industries working against reality.