I don’t think it’s wise to make the outer layer “focus on benefits rather than risks.” That sort of spin control will probably be detected and lower your credibility in the eyes of the public. But more importantly, panic isn’t always a bad thing. (I’m assuming we’re using “panic” broadly here: I don’t remember any riots over IVF.) I’d like to see a little more panic about AGI.
Your concrete suggestions look good. For example astronomical stakes rather than existential risk is a good move, because it’s balanced. And it’s not a good idea to push too hard on doom and gloom: that will lower your credibility just as much as positive spin. The outer layer doesn’t need to be positive, just suitably non-technical and representative of the overall layout of the issues.
I don’t think it’s wise to make the outer layer “focus on benefits rather than risks.” That sort of spin control will probably be detected and lower your credibility in the eyes of the public.
As I understand it, this is usually not the case if the spin is done professionally.
The outer layer doesn’t need to be positive, just suitably non-technical and representative of the overall layout of the issues.
This pretty much negates the entire premise as suggested in the post, and just reduces down to “explain things to laymen”
I don’t think it’s wise to make the outer layer “focus on benefits rather than risks.” That sort of spin control will probably be detected and lower your credibility in the eyes of the public. But more importantly, panic isn’t always a bad thing. (I’m assuming we’re using “panic” broadly here: I don’t remember any riots over IVF.) I’d like to see a little more panic about AGI.
Your concrete suggestions look good. For example astronomical stakes rather than existential risk is a good move, because it’s balanced. And it’s not a good idea to push too hard on doom and gloom: that will lower your credibility just as much as positive spin. The outer layer doesn’t need to be positive, just suitably non-technical and representative of the overall layout of the issues.
As I understand it, this is usually not the case if the spin is done professionally.
This pretty much negates the entire premise as suggested in the post, and just reduces down to “explain things to laymen”