“Eliezer has sometimes made statements that are much stronger than necessary for his larger point, and those statements turn out to be false upon close examination” is something I already generically believe, e.g. see here.

I get the impression that this guy (whose job at an AGI thinkpiece institute founded by a cryptobillionaire depends on believing this) would say this about ALL of EYs statements, leaving his larger point floating in the air, “supported” by whatever EY statements you aren’t currently looking at.