The fact that these statements coexist within organizations that are nonetheless pursuing RSI suggests—among other things—an absence of consensus around the risks.
I don't think so. The statements themselves are evidence of consensus. Maybe there isn't consensus on the exact probability of doom or what exact dangers lurk, but I think the fact that the frontier labs are calling for regulation is evidence that there is a broad consensus that the current trajectory is dangerous. The problem is not one of lack of consensus but lack of coordination. The labs ... (read more)
There is a good deal of political science work on studying the Montreal Protocol and why the adoption path was (relatively) easy compared to something like a treaty regulating carbon emissions to reduce climate change. Two major points are usually made: (1) The degree to which existing alternatives to CFC's were already readily available and feasible from a cost perspective. In other words, replacement was economically viable. (2) The degree to which production and use of CFC's were driving a significant portion of the economy. Obviously they were importan... (read more)
I don't think so. The statements themselves are evidence of consensus. Maybe there isn't consensus on the exact probability of doom or what exact dangers lurk, but I think the fact that the frontier labs are calling for regulation is evidence that there is a broad consensus that the current trajectory is dangerous. The problem is not one of lack of consensus but lack of coordination. The labs ... (read more)