Pinker sets AI‑risk evidence bar

A noted public intellectual publicly named specific empirical developments that would change his skepticism about existential AI risk, effectively establishing a transparent threshold for when mainstream opinion should pivot. That procedural move — naming concrete, testable evidence — reframes the debate from rhetoric to observable criteria. — If influential skeptics publish explicit, testable criteria for changing their position, it can reorient media coverage, policy timelines, and funders toward measurable signals rather than speculative scenarios.