[TheEzEzz]

Good question. Perhaps depends on the type of warning shot. Plenty of media has an anti-tech bend and will publicize warning shots if they see them -- and they do this already with near term risks, such as facial recognition.

If the warning shot is from an internal red team, then higher likelihood that it isn't reported. To address that I think we need to continue to improve the culture around safety, so that we increase the odds that a person on or close to that red team blows the whistle if we're stepping toward undisclosed disaster.

I think the bigger risk isn't that we don't hear the warning shots though. It's that we don't get the warning shots, or we get them far too late. Or, perhaps more likely, we get them but are already set on some inexorable path due to competitive pressure. And a million other "or's".

[creer]

You mention media publicizing warning shots. Does that really work at all?

Most of the reporting I see is half-dismissive: [facial recognition is a risk but what are you gonna do? it can't be bad to fight crime.] This goes for everything. And it rarely results in effective control.

Internal practice in biology or chemistry labs kinda does - but takes a long time, and then accidents still happen.

NTSB accident investigations: Is there another field where each accident is taken as seriously as there? And step-wise improvement does not sound like a good solution for self-reproducing agents.

[TheEzEzz]

For example with facial recognition, see this outcome with Rite Aid being banned from using it after a "warning shot" https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/20/rite-aid-facial-recognitio...