It seems he is describing normalcy bias. This is the bias where people's brains try to fit new data into existing normal frameworks

An all-too-frequent real-life example is "that smoke is just part of the show, wow, that's impressive!", and people continue enjoying their dinner and show. Then, reality breaks through, everyone panics, and many die both from both stampede and fire.

If people had, instead of continuing to live their lives and enjoy dinner as if nothing were happening, calmly gotten up and left in time, obviously everything would have been better.

This AI storm could be the same phenomena, just on a larger time scale. If people are enjoying their lives with awareness this is the last time they'll get to enjoy before a collapse, that is one thing.

If people are more sticking their heads in the sand and maintaining their normalcy bias, that is another. It seems this last bit is the point of the article?

Yes, I understand normalcy bias.

But who's talking about a collapse? Not OP. They say they are in an existential crisis, but not what it is, other than a vague "machines are getting smarter". They never describe what it is they're supposedly right or wrong about.