Stuart Armstrong asked a similar question a while back. You may find the comments to his post useful.

Where can I find some precise, well thought out reasons why the risk of human extinction from strong AI is not just small, but for practical purposes equal to 0? I am interested in both arguments from people who believe the risk is zero, and people who do not believe this, but still attempt to "steel man" the argument.

The primary disagreement, in the steel man universe, is over urgency. If one knew that we would make AGI in 2200, then one would be less worried about solving the friendliness problem now. If one knew that we would make AGI in 2020, then one would be very worried about solving the friendliness problem now.

For many people who work on AI, it's hard to believe that it will 'just start working' at that high level of ability soon, because of how optimistic AI proponents have been over the years and how hard it is to wring a bit more predictive accuracy out of the algorithms for their problems.

But if one takes the position not that one is certain that it will happen soon, but that one is uncertain when it will happen, the uncertainty implies that it will happen sooner or later, and that means we need to do some planning for the sooner case. (That is, uncertainty does not imply it can only happen a long time from now.) This is, it seems, the most effective way to communicate with people who aren't worried about Strong AI.

What I write here is just my personal opinion, I am not speaking for the whole LW. Obviously. For the sake of brevity, please assume that every sentence begins with "I think..." and ends with "...unless you have good reasons to do otherwise, of course." I am saying this to avoid scaring a new member, because sometimes new members report that LW culture feels scary to them. /end-of-disclaimers

If you write your beliefs about the nature of motivation (or anything else), it is better to also provide an information why you think that. So that we could estimate your level of certainty, and possibly find out more about the topic. If what you write is based on a research, please provide links, so curious people can look at the original papers. But don't worry, quoting research is not necessary for blogging on LW. If what you write is based on your personal observation, that's also okay. If you have some credentials, e.g. you are a motivation coach, feel free to say shortly something about yourself and link to your website. But not having credentials is still okay. If your conclusions are based on some specific examples you have seen, the article would be better if you write not only the conclusions but also an example or two (properly anonymized) that have led you to the conclusion. This may prevent or reduce misunderstanding.

Please start with the topic you want to write about; avoid long disclaimers and introductions. Don't write an introductory article that merely describes what are you planning to write in the following articles; instead go ahead and post the first part. Make the first part contain its own conclusion, instead of merely opening the topic and promissing to come to the conclusion in one of the future parts. Essentially, write in a way that doesn't leave anything unfinished. If your topic is too long for a single article, choose a subset that can fit in a single article, and write that first. Then choose another subset (now you are allowed to refer to the article you already wrote) and write that. Repeat until the topic is exhausted, or until you lose interest in writing more. Why? For the reader, it allows to discuss and vote on your articles immediately, instead of thinking "okay, this seems kinda interesting, but I haven't heard anything specific yet". For the writer, not promising anything means not creating a pressure on yourself: there are only the articles you have already published, and the completely unconstrained future. (If you have read the Sequences, which I recommend, especially in the book form, you'll see it was written mostly this way.)

What is the typical consensus on rationalist blogs?

About what -- motivation? I remember reading about "hyperbolic discounting" and similar mathy stuff, but to me personally that always felt wrong... not technically incorrect, but avoiding the core of the matter, which is usually something emotional, not an equation. I would recommend reading PJ Eby, who also sometimes posts on LW (Spock's Dirty Little Secret, Improving The Akrasia Hypothesis).

Would anyone be willing to offer their advice on this type of thing/give feedback on what I'm thinking of posting?

If your post will contain interesting information, I am sure people will reply.