There are some social reasons for writing and reading blogs.

One reason is that “a blog post is a very long and complex search query to find fascinating people and make them route interesting stuff to your inbox”. I expect to continue to value finding new people who share my interests after AI starts writing better blog posts than me, which could be very soon. I'm less sure about whether this continues to be a good reason to write them, since I imagine blog posts will become a less credible signal of what I'm like.

Another property that makes me want to read a blog or blogger is the audience: I value that it's likely my peers will also have read what I'm reading, so I can discuss it. This gives the human bloggers some kind of first-mover advantage, because it might only be worth switching your attention to the AI bloggers if the rest of the audience coordinates to switch with you. Famous bloggers might then switch into more of a curation role.

To some extent I also intrinsically care about reading true autobiography (the same reason I might intrinsically care about watching stunts performed by real humans, rather than CGI or robots).

I think these are relatively minor factors, though, compared to the straightforward quality of reasoning and writing.

As Buck points out, Toby's estimate of P(AI doom) is closer to the 'mainstream' than MIRI's, and close enough that "so low" doesn't seem like a good description.

I can't really speak on behalf of others at FHI, of course, by I don't think there is some 'FHI consensus' that is markedly higher or lower than Toby's estimate.

Also, I just want to point out that Toby's 1/10 figure is not for human extinction, it is for existential catastrophe caused by AI, which includes scenarios which don't involve extinction (forms of 'lock-in'). Therefore his estimate for extinction caused by AI is lower than 1/10.