AGI and AI danger is abstract. Worse, outside of the tech community, no one has the remotest clue what computing is, how it works.
Danger from magical daemons seems more sensible to such people. At least there is endless lore about them.
So until a massive disaster happens, one where large numbers of people die or are severely injured, no one will care. And it can't be politically entwined either, otherwise people will disbelieve 'cause "other team lies".
There's endless lore about rogue AI, too.
Hence why so many AI stories are illustrated with a publicity still from Terminator or 2001. Or Age of Ultron. Or Ex Machina. Or Portal.
Comparatively, every single human culture going back tens of thousands of years, has stories of demons and gods and witches and warlocks and you name it.
There's a difference of scope and scale. I didn't say that nobody knew of these references, just that, comparatively, there's a difference. A scope difference.
For example Terminator's getting kind of old. And while a different genre, would you believe I met somebody that didn't even know who Clint Eastwood was?
These things just aren't as deep in our psyche, as religions that have lasted thousands of years, or legends that are hundreds of years old. Our entire culture is wrapped around these religions, and legends.
Anyhow, truthfully, my point is that this sort of concept is abstract to people, even if they saw it in a movie that doesn't make it concrete to them.
My point here is, we cannot presume people "get it". Does a rural farmer in Iowa get it, who doesn't even bank online? What about people who only read siloed news feeds, and are not in tech?
We are discussing how to ensure safety, but we cannot hope or presume people get it. Evaluating this risk is a case where a pessimistic view is optimal to protect the interests of humanity.
We must act as if everyone outside our siloed experience, is unaware. And work to disclose risk in a manner inline with their world view.
Seeing your other posts, I think you agree on possible risk.