Considering that the skeptics in the example you've outlined are mostly misinformed/uninformed due to misconceptions about AI, I find that skepticism is more of a natural response to uncomfortable assertions made by AI boosters ("It's coming for you!") than a fault in epistemology in the search for truth. It makes the most sense to me that the default position skeptics take is anti-AI, but with any suggestion that the technology is unable to improve, their position becomes that of a skeptic. For this reason I believe it'll be difficult to convince skeptics with logical arguments before there's clear evidence against their point, mostly because of their strong bias.
Considering that the skeptics in the example you've outlined are mostly misinformed/uninformed due to misconceptions about AI, I find that skepticism is more of a natural response to uncomfortable assertions made by AI boosters ("It's coming for you!") than a fault in epistemology in the search for truth. It makes the most sense to me that the default position skeptics take is anti-AI, but with any suggestion that the technology is unable to improve, their position becomes that of a skeptic. For this reason I believe it'll be difficult to convince skeptics with logical arguments before there's clear evidence against their point, mostly because of their strong bias.