Amalthea comments on Accuracy of arguments that are seen as ridiculous and intuitively false but don’t have good counter-arguments

[Amalthea]

So it would be: Claim: A nuclear bomb could set the atmosphere on fire and destroy everything on earth Argument: Someone did a calculation. Counterargument: Clearly, that’s absurd. Good Counterargument: Someone else did another calculation.

And I guess the analogy to AI applies foom/​room a the bottom, where one can actually do calculations to at least in principle estimate some OOMs.