Oxford University this week shut down an academic institute run by one of Elon Musk’s favorite philosophers. The Future of Humanity Institute, dedicated to the long-termism movement and other Silicon Valley-endorsed ideas such as effective altruism, closed this week after 19 years of operation. Musk had donated £1m to the FIH in 2015 through a sister organization to research the threat of artificial intelligence. He had also boosted the ideas of its leader for nearly a decade on X, formerly Twitter.

The center was run by Nick Bostrom, a Swedish-born philosopher whose writings about the long-term threat of AI replacing humanity turned him into a celebrity figure among the tech elite and routinely landed him on lists of top global thinkers. OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Tesla chief Musk all wrote blurbs for his 2014 bestselling book Superintelligence.

Bostrom resigned from Oxford following the institute’s closure, he told the Guardian.

The closure of Bostrom’s center is a further blow to the effective altruism and longtermism movements that the philosopher has spent decades championing, which in recent years have become mired in scandals related to racism, sexual harassment and financial fraud. Bostrom himself issued an apology last year after a decades-old email surfaced in which he claimed “Blacks are more stupid than whites” and used the N-word.

Effective altruism, the utilitarian belief that people should focus their lives and resources on maximizing the amount of global good they can do, has become a heavily promoted philosophy in recent years. The philosophers at the center of it, such as Oxford professor William MacAskill, also became the subject of immense amounts of news coverage and glossy magazine profiles. One of the movement’s biggest backers was Sam Bankman-Fried, the now-disgraced former billionaire who founded the FTX cryptocurrency exchange.

Bostrom is a proponent of the related longtermism movement, which held that humanity should concern itself mostly with long term existential threats to its existence such as AI and space travel. Critics of longtermism tend to argue that the movement applies an extreme calculus to the world that disregards tangible current problems, such as climate change and poverty, and veers into authoritarian ideas. In one paper, Bostrom proposed the concept of a universally worn “freedom tag” that would constantly surveil individuals using AI and relate any suspicious activity to a police force that could arrest them for threatening humanity.

The past few years have been tumultuous for effective altruism, however, as Bankman-Fried’s multibillion-dollar fraud marred the movement and spurred accusations that its leaders ignored warnings about his conduct. Concerns over effective altruism being used to whitewash the reputation of Bankman-Fried, and questions over what good effective altruist organizations are actually doing, proliferated in the years since his downfall.

Meanwhile, Bostrom’s email from the 1990s resurfaced last year and resulted in him issuing a statement repudiating his racist remarks and clarifying his views on subjects such as eugenics. Some of his answers – “Do I support eugenics? No, not as the term is commonly understood” – led to further criticism from fellow academics that he was being evasive.

    • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      97 months ago

      It definitely feels like Oxford got ahead of the scandals coming down the pipeline by freezing funding in 2020.

    • @irishPotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      37 months ago

      Alright I’ll take the bait, what kinda cunt am I? 😅 It’s just an idea that some bad actors (like Sam Bankman Fried) have run amok with, doesn’t discredit the idea itself.

      What’s wrong with applying your skillset in the free market and then donating a percentage of your salaries to vetted, highly effective charities in lieu of directly working for those same or other charities where your skillset may not be as helpful as straight up cash?

      In my view it’s simply a more empirical approach to donating your money to worthwhile causes, sure as shit does more good than the status quo where most affluent people just hoard their money and avoid paying taxes as best they can. I think of it as an opt in tax where a certain percentage of one’s income can be earmarked towards doing the optimal amount of good it can in the world current and future. For a long time one of the most effective charities according to give well has been sourcing malaria nets in Africa, not really the far futurism this article is criticising.