I think we should have a norm that you should explain the limitations of the debunking when debunking bad arguments, particularly if there are stronger arguments that sound similar to the bad argument.
A more basic norm is that you shouldn’t claim or strongly imply that your post is strong evidence against something when it just debunks some bad arguments for it, particularly there are relatively well known better arguments.
I think we should have a norm that you should explain the limitations of the debunking when debunking bad arguments, particularly if there are stronger arguments that sound similar to the bad argument.
A more basic norm is that you shouldn’t claim or strongly imply that your post is strong evidence against something when it just debunks some bad arguments for it, particularly there are relatively well known better arguments.
I think Nate’s post violates both of these norms. In fact, I think multiple posts about this topic from Nate and Eliezer[1] violate this norm. (Examples: the corresponding post by Nate, “But why would the AI kill us” by Nate, and “The Sun is big, but superintelligences will not spare Earth a little sunlight” by Eliezer.)
I discuss this more in this comment I made earlier today.
I’m including Eliezer because he has a similar perspective, obviously they are different people.