3 ms·
> some use "not accredited" as a pejorative term. I am absolutely using "not accredited" in a pejorative sense here. That he publishes papers coauthored by a c
by swiftcoder 24d ago
> some use "not accredited" as a pejorative term.
I am absolutely using "not accredited" in a pejorative sense here. That he publishes papers coauthored by a couple of philosophy professors at Oxford (all of whom have made a ton of money from the Silicon Valley AI Alignment and Effective Altruism crowds) does not make him a scientist.
I will also note that the Oxford Philosophy department finally shitcanned the whole Future of Humanity Institute a couple of years back.
- naishoya 22d agook, that is informative and much more substantial than calling him 'not accredited.' I appreciate the clarification. That his writings are unscientific, and that the accredited professionals who were his coauthors have lost tenure from Oxford when an old email from the FHI Bostrom used a racial slur and claimed Black people were intellectually inferior and his 'apology' included a defense of eugenics that deeply alarmed the university community and triggered a formal investigation, are two details not immediately visible from a brief review of his published opinions. These are far more damning indictments than simply categorization of the author as lacking in formal education. Thank you for the opportunity to look more deeply at the situation and come an understanding of the consequences of taking his writings seriously.