Good news: “Oxford University closed the Future of Humanity Institute (FHI), a research organization led by philosopher Nick Bostrom, who is backed by Elon Musk”

[knud@mastodon.social]

@alineblankertz

Good! F*cking pseudo science.

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@alineblankertz this was in 2024

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/19/oxford-future-of-humanity-institute-closes

you still love to see it, though

[ggmcbg@mstdn.plus]

@alineblankertz
Make Philosophers Live in Ewers Again!

[fluidlogic@oldbytes.space]

@davidgerard @alineblankertz The Future of Life Institute should be next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Life_Institute

...and the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_the_Study_of_Existential_Risk is on dodgy #TESCREAL ground too. I had a very hard time taking anything in Luke Kemp's "Goliath's Curse" seriously because of his affiliation with that latter group.

[uriel@x.keinpfusch.net]

are we now at this point? people being fired from universities, on both sides, because of politics?

[skaphle@social.tchncs.de]

@alineblankertz I still can't quite grasp how Effective Altruism and rationality basically got turned on its head. About 15 years ago I was very curious and read a lot. Yudkowsky's Rationality A-Z inspired me, I learned a lot about biases and humility. I also still think the whole givewell stuff is a good idea for people who have money and want to donate that to good causes.

At some point it turned out neoliberal ideology and capitalism was never up for debate in the community and climate change was deemed a boring, practically already solved issue that you should not invest your 40000 hours of lifetime work into. Nowadays I recognize more inherent flaws.

But still, it should kind of make sense in a way and a lot of people just spend their 10% without turning into monsters.

[arpie4math@mathstodon.xyz]

@uriel @alineblankertz EA is masquerading as philosophy but without honestly engaging with the idea of people existing today. And that lack of honesty is a fatal flaw in academia.

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@fluidlogic @alineblankertz yeah, tegmark's still at it

"the swedish EA with the racism scandal, no no that one the other one"

[greensofshade@mastodon.social]

@alineblankertz that's the guy who talks about turning poor people into fuel, isn't it?

[jztusk@mastodon.social]

@alineblankertz

Cool, but can we have a better source?

> Welcome to London Daily, an innovative and unique news experiment driven by advanced artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

[uriel@x.keinpfusch.net]

either is legal or not. If something is legal , people can do it.

[mxchara@cyberpunk.lol]

@alineblankertz that's a hopeful sign. maybe there's actually some hope that Musk will be ejected from the Royal Society

[skua@mastodon.social]

@alineblankertz

Seems nothing was learnt (or the realisation dawns so slowly that lots if damage is done first) from what grew in academia and then expanded into common delusion and The Holocaust when the elite began funding scientific investigations into eugenics.

"You got dollars?
We'll make a place for you at our university!"

#Eugenics #Nazis #Fascism #CarnegieMellon #OxfordUniversity #FutureOfHumanityInstitute #FHI #NickBostrom #EliezerYudkowsky #TESCREAL #BjornLomborg

[jabgoe2089@hub.netzgemeinde.eu]

@Aline Blankertz what should this be: "effective altruism"???

[alineblankertz@indieweb.social]

@skaphle
Welllll...I don't think anything got turned on its head, it was always intended to be an ethics-washing project for tech bros who believe that democracy that deals with concerns of real people is not their thing. Which is not to say that I have always been immune to their narratives, quite the opposite.

The whole givewell stuff is flawed also (among many factors) because it thinks in terms of charity, not solidarity. They do not see other people as their equals.

[alineblankertz@indieweb.social]

@chpietsch Yes, but: As I have said before (also to Rainer in person, of course), a key flaw of the book is that you should read it if you want to feel good about being a political "centrist" who considers fascist tendencies something that is done elsewhere and by others.

If you are interested in TESCREAL and read English, it makes more sense to read the original by @timnitGebru and @xriskology https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/13636 and related works. They are much more politically solid.

[alineblankertz@indieweb.social]

@uriel
Eugenics is NOT "politics".

[alineblankertz@indieweb.social]

@davidgerard @fluidlogic

Future of Life, Centre for Existential Risk, Radical Xchange Foundation...it's a huge network. And they position their ideas quite well with political parties, the European Commission and national governments. The AI Safety/Security Institutes that are being built are not 100% EA, but mix it effectively with other ideas.

[chpietsch@fedifreu.de]

@alineblankertz I'm sorry for mansplaining.

[uriel@x.keinpfusch.net]

And cats are not trees. (I can state self-evident truths too.)

And yes, a university is exactly the right place to debate what eugenics is. In fact, that is precisely how we come to understand what eugenics actually means and implies.

Besides, eugenic ideas are hardly a modern invention. Starting with Spartan society — which did not routinely throw babies off cliffs, despite the popular myth, but did have practices aimed at influencing reproduction, including expectations about choosing tall and robust wives — many societies have incorporated some form of eugenic thinking into politics and social policy.

The Nazi regime, for example, explicitly pursued eugenic policies. But even deciding that eugenics must be prohibited as an acceptable social or political practice is itself a political decision.

And the proper place to examine, debate, define, criticize, and understand such ideas is precisely the university.