Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

futureofhumanityinstitute.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 319 posts

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#111

Post by shawn_w »

colechristensen wrote: post #108
laurex wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've had recorded history of people saying things for less time than we've had a formal scientific method. Surely the accumulation of knowledge through our recording of people saying things carries some weight? It truly has not been that long in which great acceleration of climate conditions have become existential- though I suppose in the timelines of life on earth, the era of recorded human thoughts is itself minu…

>We've had recorded history of people saying things for less time than we've had a formal scientific method. False, we have vast amounts of records of everyday correspondence, written speeches, graffiti, works of fiction, etc. from Romans 2000 years ago, long before scientific method (which I guess is usually attributed to Newton?, anyway approximately contemporary) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_Man Hesiod 27…

I think they're using a more limited meaning of recorded than is usual; probably just referring to voice/sound recording.

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#112

Post by zehaeva »

swyx wrote: post #72
dotsam wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tegmark’s institution is the Future of Life Institute, this is the Oxford Future of Humanity Institute. Tegmark’s institute is well-funded, apparently largely due to a big crypto donation from Vitalik Buterin. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/25/a-665m-crypto-war-c...

why do people not like Max Tegmark? he was kind of a rockstar at NeurIPS

I like the guy, but I do think he's nutty over the level of multiverse he believes in.

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#113

Post by neffy »

frozenseven wrote: post #89
helboi4 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats.... still racist? Why does he think black people have a lower IQ? Nigerian immigrants to the US are some of the most successful immigrants. Like... black people just do not have lower IQs and to say so is considered very dangerous rhetoric for a reason. The reason we even have pervasive belief that black people are stupider is because it was convenient rhetoric for the colonial powers pillaging Africa and treat…

>Why does he think black people have a lower IQ? Because of every study that's ever been done on this topic? Pointing this out isn't racist. >Nigerian immigrants to the US are some of the most successful immigrants. Typically those immigrants come from among the smartest few %.

It of course depends on how you cut and slice it, and also on the categorisation of black - but we are talking about approximately 2-3 billion people there if we include India, Indonesia, Africa and the rest of the world.

Can you point to a study that has comprehensively assessed that total population? Or just a few studies by Americans, who make their own racial biases, which from a cynical perspective can be boiled down to rampant and cruel exploitation over several centuries, abundantly clear in the articles concerned?

Immigrants across the world tend to be a slightly self selecting class of folks - why would black immigrants be any different on that front?

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#114

Post by n4r9 »

busterarm wrote: post #62
n4r9 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that the philosophy faculty would take CS Lewis' opinion seriously into consideration. He was a decent storyteller, but not much of a philosopher.

His work is often quietly cited by a handful of moral philosophers. In particular, The Discarded Image, anytime someone is writing about medieval philosophy. Anyway, being a philosopher simply isn't what the guy did and academics are fairly dismissive without consideration anytime religion (and specifically Christian apologetics) gets in the mix.

I'd interested to take a look if you have any further info about which moral philosophers and which works cite The Discarded Image?

I admit I haven't read that one myself; my own take on him as a philosopher stems from reading Mere Christianity and summaries of Surprised by Joy, and not being aware of any references to his work by more recent philosophers that I've been interested in such as Chomsky, Zizek, or Dennett. I got a strong feeling that Lewis' arguments and exposition were guided by something other than logic, though they pretended to be following it. The trilemma is an example of this.

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#115

Post by johngossman »

arduanika wrote: post #100
johngossman wrote: post #22

Bear with a digression. CS Lewis was a professor at Oxford. His novel “That Hideous Strength” is about an organization that wants to use science to save humanity. “It’s a little fantastic to base one’s actions on a supposed concern for what’s going to happen millions of years hence; and you must remember that the other side would claim to be preserving humanity, too.” — That Hideous Strength: (Space Trilogy, Book Thr…

While I do appreciate this reference and agree with CS Lewis here, I think it's a bit of a stretch to draw a connection between him and the present day Oxford philosophy faculty. He was a single don from nearly a century ago, who now really belongs to the canon at large rather than a single university. Perhaps the current faculty all hold some special reverence for him, but it seems more likely that modern mainstream…

I agree with you completely. And yet...I can't imagine at least some of them aren't aware of it, and it might have planted a seed. I could totally believe there was a faculty meeting and someone said: "Didn't CS Lewis write a book or two about this?" followed by laughter (some of it nervous). It's just so odd to me that out of all the universities in the world, FHI ended up at the place CS Lewis was when he wrote this book. I can pull quote after quote out of it, that if you don't know it was written in 1943, you would think he was parodying FHI and EA. Which really reflects that these two movements aren't that new.

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#117

Post by exo-pla-net »

cauch wrote: post #97
exo-pla-net wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An assertion without rationale is noise or worse. "That's racist; cancel them!" falls in the latter category. It's the mindless baying of the rabble. You don't engage with the rabble, as there's no fixing stupid. You just hope they shut up, so that you and the other adults can think, and you hope that the rabble burns down someone else's house. Analogously, there's not much to be gained from engaging with someone sho…

But the author himself says that his sentence is repugnant. Are you saying that the author has no rational to say that? It really looks like nowadays we cannot say "that looks racist" without being accused of being the big satan that want to cancel everyone. If this kind of "ad-hominem" is not itself not without any rational and not noisy and inflammatory, I don't know what is. You can, if you want, defend that accor…

> Are you saying that the author has no rational to say that?

Sure, instrumental rationale: PR.

And, because I believe that Bostrom says what he means, Bostrom probably does think what he said was repugnant, but probably not in a way that you would find satisfying. Bostrom probably thinks that speaking truthfully about vulnerable people, in a manner that could distress them (e.g. owing to their misunderstanding of the truthful words, or in a "truth hurts" sort of way), is morally repugnant. Better to spare them suffering. If I am correct, I disagree with Bostrom. Having to cater to delicate and low-IQ sensibilities is a wrench in the wheels of intellectual discourse, as well as a dystopian blow to personal expression. Don't let the scolds win.

> It really looks like nowadays we cannot say "that looks racist"

You don't have a license to denigration. Think very carefully, and consider the possibility that you are wrong, before you cast stones.

> You can, if you want, defend that according to you this statement was fine and not racist.

But what I quoted contained my rationale? If it ain't good enough for you, the impetus is on you to prove that Bostrom is, in fact, a witch. The ball is in your court.

> Difficult to not see there exactly a "cancelation" of an opinion you just don't like.

Any opinion at all, and especially opinions that differ from my own, I'd welcome at the table, as long as said opinion is articulated and epistemically rationalized by someone who is smart and who has given it careful thought. If you're not capable of that, then yes, your silence would improve the forum.

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#118

Post by IncreasePosts »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #86
IncreasePosts wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if these people ever paused to consider they aren't as smart as they think they are, if they're just figuring out some basics of human communication in their mid 20s that my 8 year old has known for years.

Has your 8 yr old really known this for years? He may behave in a conformist way, instinctively, without being able to describe it or understand the phenomenon... both of which are, in my opinion, required to know it. And who's figuring out whose communication? He basically has to draw a picture in crayon of what he means, just so all the rest of you don't misconstrue his meaning. Your "human communication" is much t…

I assume by "draw a picture in crayon", you mean provide a very simple explanation. You seem to be confusing the fact that children generally draw simple things, and also draw with crayons commonly. But there is nothing about crayons intrinsically that means a crayon drawings must be simple.

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#119

Post by frozenseven »

neffy wrote: post #113
frozenseven wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why does he think black people have a lower IQ? Because of every study that's ever been done on this topic? Pointing this out isn't racist. >Nigerian immigrants to the US are some of the most successful immigrants. Typically those immigrants come from among the smartest few %.

It of course depends on how you cut and slice it, and also on the categorisation of black - but we are talking about approximately 2-3 billion people there if we include India, Indonesia, Africa and the rest of the world. Can you point to a study that has comprehensively assessed that total population? Or just a few studies by Americans, who make their own racial biases, which from a cynical perspective can be boiled…

South Asians are a wholly different and distinct group. Most Indonesians are South-East Asian, except for Chinese migrants and those living on the island of New Guinea. Africa is a continent, not a race.

What you're saying is all over the place. And I'm not here to discuss politics.

Re: Future of Humanity Institute shuts down

#120

Post by notahacker »

exo-pla-net wrote: post #117
cauch wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the author himself says that his sentence is repugnant. Are you saying that the author has no rational to say that? It really looks like nowadays we cannot say "that looks racist" without being accused of being the big satan that want to cancel everyone. If this kind of "ad-hominem" is not itself not without any rational and not noisy and inflammatory, I don't know what is. You can, if you want, defend that accor…

> Are you saying that the author has no rational to say that? Sure, instrumental rationale: PR. And, because I believe that Bostrom says what he means, Bostrom probably does think what he said was repugnant, but probably not in a way that you would find satisfying. Bostrom probably thinks that speaking truthfully about vulnerable people, in a manner that could distress them (e.g. owing to their misunderstanding of th…

A statement that Race X is "more stupid" than Race Y is almost tautologically racist.

The idea that Nick denigrating an entire race as 'stupid' is "accurate and mild", whereas any suggestion that the statement contains racism requires a "license to denigrate" is truly through the looking glass...

Post reply on HN