It's not so much that I'm a better truth finder, it's that I've had the privilege of thinking through the issues as a core component of my full time job for the past two years, and people like Caplan only raise points that have been accounted for in my model for a long time.

Yes, but why Caplan did not see it fit to think about the issue for a significant time, and you did?

There's also the AI researchers who have had the privilege of thinking about relevant subjects for a very long time, education, and accomplishments which verify that their thinking adds up over time - and who are largely the actual source for the opinions held by the policy makers.

By the way, note that the usual method of rejection of wrong ideas, is not even coming up with wrong ideas in the first place, and general non-engagement of wrong ideas. This is because the space of wrong ideas is much larger than the space of correct ideas.

What I expect to see in the counter-factual world where the AI risk is a big problem, is that the proponents of the AI risk in that hypothetical world have far more impressive and far more relevant accomplishments and credentials.

but to have the object-level debates about the facts at issue.

The first problem with highly speculative topics is that great many arguments exist in favour of either opinion on a speculative topic. The second problem is that each such argument relies on a huge number of implicit or explicit assumptions that are likely to be violated due to their origin as random guesses. The third problem is that there is no expectation that the available arguments would be a representative sample of the arguments in general.

This doesn't appear to be accurate. E.g. Carl & Paul changed my mind about the probability of hard takeoff.

Hmm, I was under the impression that you weren't a big supporter of the hard takeoff to begin with.

If I mention a public figure agreeing with me, it's generally not because this plays a significant role in my own estimates, it's because other people think there's a stronger correlation between social status and correctness than I do.

Well, your confidence should be increased by the agreement; there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is when it is not balanced by the expected decrease by disagreement.