Future of Humanity Institute shuts down
Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute has been shut down after years of strained relations with the university’s philosophy faculty, including freezes on hiring and fundraising that researchers say slowly “suffocated” the center. Commenters debate whether the closure stems mainly from bureaucratic hostility, reputational damage tied to effective altruism and the FTX scandal, or controversies around founder Nick Bostrom’s past remarks on race and IQ. The broader exchange questions the value and risks of longtermism and AI‑safety research, with some seeing these ideas as vital and others viewing them as pseudo-rational ideology that has enabled harmful behavior.
Reasons for Closure
- FHI’s own final report cites increasing incompatibility with Oxford’s Philosophy Faculty: heavy bureaucracy, slow decisions, and misaligned incentives.
- Example given: hundreds of emails needed to route an already-approved small grant through faculty accounts.
- Starting in 2020 the faculty reportedly froze FHI’s fundraising and hiring; in late 2023 they chose not to renew remaining contracts.
- Some commenters speculate reputational issues (founder’s old email, EA/FTX associations, AI “doomerism”) made the institute a PR liability, but dates don’t fully align and funding specifics are unclear.
Oxford, Administration, and Politics
- Several see this as a case of modern university bureaucracy strangling a nimble research group.
- Others push back, suggesting Oxford’s age and stability make “incompetence” less likely and pointing instead to EA‑related money shocks or internal politics.
- FHI’s own report admits underinvestment in university politics and “translation” to local academic culture.
Effective Altruism, FTX, and Longtermism
- Strong disagreement on EA:
- Critics call it cultish, naive utilitarianism that morphed into longtermist/AI-apocalypse ideology, reallocated money from concrete aid to speculative “infinite future” causes, and helped rationalize FTX fraud.
- Defenders argue EA began as a sensible attempt to improve charity effectiveness; criminal behavior is on individuals, not the philosophy.
- Some link EA and newer “e/acc” styles of techno-optimism as successive waves of ideology around AI and capitalism.
Bostrom’s 1996 Email and Race/IQ Debate
- The resurfaced email, expressing liking for a statement that Black people are “more stupid” and tying this to IQ literature, sparks a large argument:
- Some say the full context shows an attempt at blunt, “truth-seeking” speech; they note his later apology and an investigation that did not label him racist.
- Others say both the original and parts of the apology are straightforwardly racist, scientifically shoddy, and reminiscent of “scientific racism.”
- Extended back-and-forth over:
- Existence and interpretation of measured group IQ gaps.
- Environmental vs genetic explanations, statistical bias, and spurious correlations.
- Whether merely stating certain empirical claims can be called racist, and how “race” is even defined.
Value of FHI and Futurist Research
- Supporters regret the loss of a rare place studying existential risk, AI alignment, and long-run human futures.
- Skeptics dismiss much of the output as speculative “intellectual wankery” or sci‑fi‑like thought experiments with overstated importance.
- Some question whether such institutes are needed now that AI risk ideas and “AI doomerism” have gone mainstream.
Other Threads
- Side debates on:
- Free markets, monopolies, and concentration of power.
- Whether pioneers of a technology or external ethicists better understand its risks.
- Comparisons to other “Future of …” institutes and mixed views on prominent AI futurists.