“There is no evidence supporting that argument” is a counter argument.

Or maybe it’s better to say that hand-wringing is not an argument that merits a counter argument.

The difference is that one side has put actual thought into their argument, while the other side is attempting to invalidate the argument based on the fact that people other than themselves have not put in the work necessary to make a claim one way or the other.

Scientific progress doesn't happen by referencing the vast stores of data that we haven't collected.

Thought != data

Indeed. Thought is what makes data useful. When you don't have either then you don't really have much of an argument, do you?

That is a pretty common logical fallacy. It is actually a well-eatablished fact that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", i.e., maybe the reason why there is no evidence is that nobody looked for it, or, as is the case here, because something is too new to find any evidence in either direction

I think you’re mistaking the fallacy. That fallacy is best applied when someone asserts certainty in absence, as in the case of God.

If someone just asserts some random thing, it’s reasonable to ask for evidence. While their lack of evidence does not disprove their point, it’s certainly an argument for being skeptical about their point.

Otherwise I get to assert that every atom is a superintelligence, and your inability to provide contrary evidence is a point in my favor.