The fact that these very-smart people did not include ranges is absurd.
They know that 11.7% is WAY too precise to report. The truth is it's probably somewhere between 5-15% over the next 20 years and nobody has any idea which side of that range is correct.
Similar precision appears in other exposure studies also. E.g. This one was trending from OpenAI and Wharton a short while back: arxiv.org/pdf/2303.10130
They know that 11.7% is WAY too precise to report. The truth is it's probably somewhere between 5-15% over the next 20 years and nobody has any idea which side of that range is correct.