AI safety skeptics seek concrete, falsifiable catastrophe scenarios

AI safety skeptics are described as seeking detailed stories that show how a harmful outcome could unfold, rather than relying only on broad catastrophe probabilities such as 5%, 10% or 20%. The analysis argues that a chain of events is easier to assess and individually falsify than an abstract probability claim.

The deepfake-driven conflict scenario associated with *Mountainhead* is cited as an example: people could believe that conflicts were occurring, potentially triggering real wars. The specific scenario is not presented as especially alarming, but as a narrative that could make the issue more engaging and testable. Job loss is also mentioned as an area where concrete storytelling may help.