Doesnât the first sentence of his old email make this part fairly clear? It sounds like heâs talking about the classic edgelord thing of enjoying the tension between intuitive repugnance and (what he took to be) logical truth on a strictly literal reading, when divorced of all subtext (which is presumably not what any reasonable person would ordinarily take the claims in question to communicate). Perhaps similar to how many philosophers find logical paradoxes invigorating. (Cf. Scott Alexanderâs classic post on related issues.)
Thatâs not to defend it, and I agree his apology isnât sufficiently clear about why his particular example was so egregiously poorly-chosen. But it does strike me as most likely stemming from neuro-atypicality rather than racist intent, for whatever thatâs worth. (Many understandably care more about racist effects than racist intent, but I mention the latter here since you seem be to be asking about Bostromâs motivations, and that does seem relevant to assessments of blameworthiness.)
Doesnât the first sentence of his old email make this part fairly clear? It sounds like heâs talking about the classic edgelord thing of enjoying the tension between intuitive repugnance and (what he took to be) logical truth on a strictly literal reading, when divorced of all subtext (which is presumably not what any reasonable person would ordinarily take the claims in question to communicate). Perhaps similar to how many philosophers find logical paradoxes invigorating. (Cf. Scott Alexanderâs classic post on related issues.)
Thatâs not to defend it, and I agree his apology isnât sufficiently clear about why his particular example was so egregiously poorly-chosen. But it does strike me as most likely stemming from neuro-atypicality rather than racist intent, for whatever thatâs worth. (Many understandably care more about racist effects than racist intent, but I mention the latter here since you seem be to be asking about Bostromâs motivations, and that does seem relevant to assessments of blameworthiness.)