Let’s say there are 10 AI optimists, which means there are 20 AI pessimists. There being more pessimists also tracks with the majority thinking it’s moving too fast.
It’s simple, Sergey. I think you got it the other way around.
While not mutually exclusive, you are limited by the total population of respondents. If 60% of people say it’s too fast, then would not it require 120% of that same population to double it?
If most are against somethung, how can twice as many feel something else? Isn’t most more than half?
Let’s say there are 10 AI optimists, which means there are 20 AI pessimists. There being more pessimists also tracks with the majority thinking it’s moving too fast.
It’s simple, Sergey. I think you got it the other way around.
Feeling it’s too fast and optimist/pessimist aren’t mutually exclusive.
While not mutually exclusive, you are limited by the total population of respondents. If 60% of people say it’s too fast, then would not it require 120% of that same population to double it?
(Most Americans say AI development is moving too fast) and (twice as many are AI pessimists as AI optimists)
My mistake, thank you for the clarification. I initially interpreted it as the same cohort.
It’s awkwardly structured, for sure. I understand the confusion. 🫡