A short, competent write-up of a new (Carlier/Clarke/Schuett) expert survey of AI-safety-and-governance people, contrasted with the earlier Muller-Bostrom and Grace surveys. The value is the clean six-way taxonomy of failure scenarios (superintelligence, influence-seeking, Goodharting, AI-related war, bad actors, other) with a one-paragraph gloss on each, plus the surprising finding that all scenarios drew roughly equal concern and 'other' led. Scott's own takeaways (even in-field people give ~10%; concern has diversified away from the classic superintelligence story; no unified picture) are sensible but modest.

Quality 65 · Strong. Strong band, mid: a useful, well-organized survey summary whose lasting contribution is the memorable six-scenario map of how AI could go wrong. Not field-defining and not original argument — it explains someone else's survey — so it sits at 65, above the roundup floor but below the essays that add a new frame.

Claude’s paradigm shift 44 · Moderate. Notable-shift lower edge: the six-scenario taxonomy is a helpful synthesis of already-circulating concerns rather than a new frame; the diversification-of-concern observation is real but incremental.

Real-world impact 1 · Negligible. Influential only within the AI-safety discussion; no material-world change. RWI 1.

Updated Look At Long-Term AI Risks