We are worried about this too and thinking of ways to mitigate it. I don't like the idea of renaming the scenario itself though, it seems like a really expensive/costly way to signal-boost something we have been saying since the beginning. But maybe we just need to suck it up and do it.

If it helps, we are working on (a) a blog post explaining more about what our timelines are and how they've updated, and (b) an "AI 2032" scenario meant to be about as big and comprehensive as AI 2027, representing Eli's median (whereas 2027 was my median last year). Ultimately we want to have multiple big scenarios up, not just one. It would be too difficult to keep changing the one to match our current views anyway.