Of course, these collective voices cannot change everyone's thoughts. But the idea of machine consciousness or the threat of artificial intelligence ends up being a niche opinion.
This is actually related to the way mathematicians debate.
Unlike debates in the humanities.
After throwing out their arguments, these mathematicians provide detailed mathematical proofs to support their viewpoints.
And those who have won the Fields Medal don't directly dismiss their opponents' views.
However, if you want to prove that the ultimate development of artificial intelligence will certainly destroy human civilization, please present a mathematically scrutinizable proof to indicate where the uncertainty of mathematical consciousness lies in the future.
If there's a rigorous proof, everything is negotiable. These big shots not only don't mind changing their stance to support these ideas, but they are even willing to recommend them for a Fields Medal.
