I don’t think it’s just an in-group perspective! Bostrom literally gives and receives feedback from kings; other members of FHI have gone on to influential positions in multi-billion dollar companies.
Are you really saying that if you ask the general public (or members of the intellectual elite), typical philosophy faculty at prestigious universities will be recognized to be as or more impressive or influential in comparison?
When did he get feedback from Kings? Googling it, the only thing I can see is that he was invited to an event which the Swedish king was also at.
Also, most of Bostrom’s extra-academic prestige is based on a small handful of the papers listed. That might justify making him something like a public communicator of philosophy, but it doesn’t obviously merit sponsoring an entire academic department indefinitely.
To be clear, I have no strong view on whether the university acted reasonably a) in the abstract or b) according to incentives in the unique prestige ecosystem which universities inhabit. But I don’t think listing a handful of papers our subgroup approves of is a good rationale for claiming that it did neither.
I’m at work and don’t have the book with me, but you can look at the “Acknowledgements” section of Superintelligence.
I agree that it’s not clear whether the Department of Philosophy acted reasonably in the unique prestige ecosystem which universities inhabit, whether in the abstract or after adjusting for FHI quite possibly being unusually difficult/annoying to work with. I do think history will vindicate my position in the abstract and “normal people” with a smattering of facts about the situation (though perhaps not the degree of granularity where you understand the details of specific academic squabbles) will agree with me.
I don’t think it’s just an in-group perspective! Bostrom literally gives and receives feedback from kings; other members of FHI have gone on to influential positions in multi-billion dollar companies.
Are you really saying that if you ask the general public (or members of the intellectual elite), typical philosophy faculty at prestigious universities will be recognized to be as or more impressive or influential in comparison?
When did he get feedback from Kings? Googling it, the only thing I can see is that he was invited to an event which the Swedish king was also at.
Also, most of Bostrom’s extra-academic prestige is based on a small handful of the papers listed. That might justify making him something like a public communicator of philosophy, but it doesn’t obviously merit sponsoring an entire academic department indefinitely.
To be clear, I have no strong view on whether the university acted reasonably a) in the abstract or b) according to incentives in the unique prestige ecosystem which universities inhabit. But I don’t think listing a handful of papers our subgroup approves of is a good rationale for claiming that it did neither.
I’m at work and don’t have the book with me, but you can look at the “Acknowledgements” section of Superintelligence.
I agree that it’s not clear whether the Department of Philosophy acted reasonably in the unique prestige ecosystem which universities inhabit, whether in the abstract or after adjusting for FHI quite possibly being unusually difficult/annoying to work with. I do think history will vindicate my position in the abstract and “normal people” with a smattering of facts about the situation (though perhaps not the degree of granularity where you understand the details of specific academic squabbles) will agree with me.