Claim · 2025-04-17 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

The paper by Hoes and Gilardi of April 2025 states that its findings indicate no direct impact of alarmist coverage of AI's existential threats on public concern for the immediate risks of AI, and that concerns about such coverage may be exaggerated.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

Existential risk narratives about AI do not distract from its immediate harms → contests → Present harms deserve priority

Where it appears

Arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI →

Claim and evidence

Existential risk narratives about AI do not distract from its immediate harmscontests ↓Present harms deserve priority

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2025-04-17 · publication Records dated 2025 →
Role: Contesting
Register (kind of text): Nonfiction
Engagement: Engages a premise. Tests and disputes the premise that attention to existential risk diverts public attention from present harms.

Scope and limitsThe evidence concerns public concern; it does not measure the attention of regulators or researchers, nor which harms deserve priority.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

Existential risk narratives about AI do not distract from its immediate harms

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122(16), e2419055122; PubMed Central copy · 2025-04-17

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“These results suggest that concerns about the negative implications of alarmist coverage of AI’s existential threats may be exaggerated, as our findings indicate no direct impact on public concern for the immediate risks of AI.”

Location in source Introduction

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Emma Hoes; Fabrizio Gilardi
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 9e9f57b9e1f18efd22d9386c13c02736877e405719bcf54f5f792a796539da3c). PubMed Central HTML of the published brief report (PMC12037001), open access under CC BY 4.0.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Emma Hoes, Fabrizio Gilardi, “Existential risk narratives about AI do not distract from its immediate harms”, 2025-04-17.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (35 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor. An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. A passage of the document disputes the proposition or a premise it depends on. The record documents the text’s position, not who is right.

Date. Date of publication, as the source gives it.

Record ID rd-r12-hoes-gilardi-2025-xrisk-narratives