I would spend dialogue points aligning that x-risk is real. It’s a hard leap. There’s like 12 objections people go through. If they really crux on “but how will it leap to physical world?” or “I just don’t see why it would want to” or “it could cause a power outage, yes, but kill millions or billions of people?” then they’re not feeling it at the level that leads to setting aside differences.
If you do fully align, then at that point I assume I’m co-equal with them on policy, politics and I assume good intent if their ideas are weird to me.
Basically you’re deep canvassing, uh, horrifying someone. But the policy alignment really doesn’t matter much here. You want to recruit their brain cells and organizing efforts and relationships to the problem.
As for left-left: I’m going to stick by, align on x-risk above all else. Concede and find common ground on things like, yes it’s also (but not just) hype, they’re getting away with a lot, we’re underutilizing existing laws, rationalists a weird. But you haven’t really recruited their whole brain, mentality, movement, organizing structure if x-risk itself doesn’t click.
You’re too confident. Maybe AI has kept us out of a recession and it’s the reason you have a less-fun job instead of no job. And 2nd order effects are everywhere, like, dating sucks on dating apps but the result is better marriages and lower divorce (I conjecture, for sake of argument).
This is true for lesser societal changes, even the mundane congestion pricing regulation in New York was very unpopular for 6 months, then it was very popular once people had it and liked it.