While Christiano's research background is impressive, some fear that by appointing a so-called "AI doomer," NIST may be risking encouraging non-scientific thinking that many critics view as sheer speculation
As long as the "AI doomer" role is done by a qualified scientist, this alleged risk is unlikely (not impossible, but unlikely.)
I will say I don't have enough knowledge of this specific role to comment, but I would suspect this would be better served by a group of scientists with one of them secreted selected at random at regular intervals to server as a "10th man".
Whenever a quorum is obtained on a position (or risk), then it is made public (documenting how the position was reached), endorsed by everyone (even those who thought differently.) A "break of ranks" would require the creation of a new "AI doom" committed (as if operating under parliamentarian rules.)
The exception to this would be when the "10th man" rule kicks in, with a 9-person quorum published as the official position, and with the 10th-man position as an official dissent.
That's how I think it should work... just talking out loud and pulling it out of my rear, tbh.