Does Bostrom actually have a cult of personality/โis elevated to ridiculous heights?
He doesnโt have a Twitter account (or any other social media presence as far as Iโm aware), doesnโt participate on EA (or EA adjacent) forums, doesnโt blog frequently and doesnโt do media tours to promote himself.
Is this necessarily an EA optics problem?
The Times article on the controversy mentions โOxford donโ, in the headline, and there was no mention of โeffective altruismโ in the body of the article.
I expect the mainstream zeitgeist on this article to be more about Bostromโs Oxford connection than his effective altruism connection.
Does Bostrom actually have a cult of personality/โis elevated to ridiculous heights?
He doesnโt have a Twitter account (or any other social media presence as far as Iโm aware), doesnโt participate on EA (or EA adjacent) forums, doesnโt blog frequently and doesnโt do media tours to promote himself.
Is this necessarily an EA optics problem?
The Times article on the controversy mentions โOxford donโ, in the headline, and there was no mention of โeffective altruismโ in the body of the article.
I expect the mainstream zeitgeist on this article to be more about Bostromโs Oxford connection than his effective altruism connection.
Iโm unconvinced that:
EA has a Bostrom specific optics problem
Bostrom has a cult of personality within EA