> While there has been some regulatory action it also feels there is some "moving on" from the more apocalyptic risk views towards more mundane risks and their management

I don't think this is correct. It's more accurate to say that multiple different camps with different fears have risen up over the last few years, and ones worried about more "mundane" AI risks have gotten their view heard more.

I think both groups - "mundane" AI-safety and AI-existential-risk worriers - have both gotten more audience for their views as AI has proven more capable.

> it also feels there is some "moving on" from the more apocalyptic risk views towards more mundane risks and their management (i.e., more vanilla product and technology risk management).

No surprise, when the public reception to AI x-risk was mostly, "big tech scaremonging / regulatory capture; why not focus on Real AI Dangers Right Now, like bias or offensive language". Seemingly refocusing on the mundane may be the only way now to do something about the apocalyptic.

There is a possibility that the apocalyptic risk just isn't there in a meaningful way while mundane risks from new tools actually would need attention (but might not even need new regulation).