He plausibly should be, he definitely gets a lot of the picture very well, but I get some impression from more recent work that he might be missing some of the convergent consequentialism stuff which seems pretty core to what I see as the core threat model. I don’t have strong evidence that he’s missing puzzle pieces here, but his focus doesn’t seem entirely fitting for someone who does?
Nick Bostrom thinks about things for non-obvious reasons, e.g. Deep Utopia partially aims to understand human values by considering their behavior at the extremes.
Why is Nick Bostrom not granted “solidly gets it”?
He plausibly should be, he definitely gets a lot of the picture very well, but I get some impression from more recent work that he might be missing some of the convergent consequentialism stuff which seems pretty core to what I see as the core threat model. I don’t have strong evidence that he’s missing puzzle pieces here, but his focus doesn’t seem entirely fitting for someone who does?
Still, on reflection I moved him up a bunch.
Nick Bostrom thinks about things for non-obvious reasons, e.g. Deep Utopia partially aims to understand human values by considering their behavior at the extremes.