When it comes to the particular post, it's written by Paul Christiano. I expect that the target audience for the post is people who want to read everything that Paul Christiano writes on AI.
I don't think it makes sense to conceptualize not reading the post if you are not in the target audience as punishing it.
If you do notice a post that seems to could have a better title, how about writing the author a message suggesting a better title for it?
You can hover over the title to have a preview showing the first lines of the article. It's usually sufficient to dissipate ambiguity, and even ignoring uninformative titles, I use it often to get a feel of an article when I'm not sure whether it's worth reading.
The latest post that finally impelled me to ask this question:
This isn't specific to that post and, having noticed that it is a cross-post, I can appreciate that this is (at least somewhat) tricky to improve, but a lot of the titles of posts are very un-informative. Even qualifying that the above post is specific to AI or AI alignment still doesn't seem like a significant improvement, or an improvement that's 'good enough'.
I notice that I often completely ignore posts with sufficiently vague titles. Upon (very shallow) introspection, I feel like the titles are pretty literally clickbait, i.e. 'click me to discover what this is about'. That seems like behavior that warrants 'punishing' (to some degree anyways).
One potential solution (mitigation) would be to include (one of) the tags in the post title, or maybe at least in the RSS feed for posts, à la Stack Overflow, e.g.:
In the above, the 'actual' title of the question is just "navigator.clipboard is undefined" and it seems like the 'first' tag is automatically included in the page title.