Well, I just made the mistake of looking to see what Nick Bostrom has been up to.
Extremely racist ideas and language from a prominent philosopher
I hate to come down on him like this because I learned a great deal from his book on observation selection effects. But Bostrom's non-apology for his racist post is appalling.
Most of the letter focuses either on the motives of those who would hold him accountable or on low key smokescreens claims of unsettled science — agnotogenesis — around the claims he had been making in the first place.
Extremely racist ideas and language from a prominent philosopher
In particular, Nick writes
"Are there any genetic contributors to differences between groups in cognitive abilities? It is not my area of expertise, and I don’t have any particular interest in the question. I would leave to others, who have more relevant knowledge, to debate whether or not in addition to environmental factors, epigenetic or genetic factors play any role."
I would like to respond publicly.
Extremely racist ideas and language from a prominent philosopher
Nick, I'm afraid it's no longer your place to leave this question to others.
You staked out an extreme, and extremely offensive, position. Backing off to "I don't actually know" doesn't cut it.
Having engaged in this public display of racism, it's on you at this point to educate yourself about why what you said is so offensive and so stupid.
You've half-heartedly acknowledged the former, and completely punted on the latter.
Extremely racist ideas and language from a prominent philosopher
@ct_bergstrom I think you do have a duty to inform casual readers that the views were expressed 26 years ago and that he has forcefully repudiated them. I read Superintelligence many years ago and I'm not terribly surprised that Bostrum would have these views judging from the often dogmatic tone of that book. I'm just glad he's owned up to how offensive it was and that he has clearly changed his thinking.
Extremely racist ideas and language from a prominent philosopher
I didn't repeat his views; I just linked to his own retelling of events, which of course focuses on the chronology.
As for "that he has clearly changed his thinking", it's not at all obvious to me that he's changed his views in any meaningful way, only his sense of their appropriateness and the stakes involved.
If I'd changed my views, I'd do better than "I don't know and I don't care if I was right or wrong."
Extremely racist ideas and language from a prominent philosopher
He repudiated the way he framed his views but not the actual views.
First he tap danced around the main and repugnant idea that Black people are inherently less intelligent than white people ("it's not my area of expertise and and I'm not interested") and then attempted to distract by wandering off into a topic (eugenics) which wasn't referenced in the original offensive context.
But he gave to a lot of charities, so I guess that makes up for it.
