Sean_o_h
Bio
I direct the AI:Futures and Responsibility Programme (https://www.ai-far.org/) at the University of Cambridge, which works on AI strategy, safety and governance. I also work on global catastrophic risks with the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk and AI strategy/policy with the Centre for the Future of Intelligence.
Posts 6
Comments196
Also, there is famously quite a lot of antisemitism on the left and far left. Sidestepping the academic debate on whether antisemitism is or is not technically a form of racism, it seem strange to me to claim that racism-and-adjacent only exist on the right.
(for avoidance of doubt, I agree with the OP that Hanania seems racist, and not a good ally for this community)
I quite liked it, but I'd happily give up praise posts if it meant not having the denouncement posts.
Supervolcanoes being unlikely to be a human extinction risk was also my conclusion when I looked into it for an extinction risk review (currently under peer review) late last year, from speaking to volcanologists - McGraw (2024) was not released at that point so I'm grateful for this analysis and to be pointed to the paper.
I agree. I suspect that responses to calls for evidence over the years played a big role in introducing and normalising xrisk research ideas in the UK context, before the big moves we've seen in the last year.
e.g. a few representative examples
(2016) https://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee/robotics-and-artificial-intelligence/written/32690.pdf
(2017)
(2022)
https://www.longtermresilience.org/post/future-of-compute-review-submission-of-evidence
And many more.
Not a perfect translation, but I like proto-EA and leading Irish language poet Sean O Riordain writing a poem about moral circle expansion back in 1971. (It reads a lot better in the original language).
https://comhar.ie/iris/81/5/ni-ceadmhach-neamhshuim/
Apathy Is Out
There’s not a fly, moth, bee,
man, or woman created by God
whose welfare’s not our responsibility;
to ignore their predicament
isn’t on.
There’s not a madman in Mad Valley
we shouldn’t sit with
and keep company,
since
he’s sick in the head
on our behalf.
There’s not a place, stream or bush, however remote;
or a flagstone
north, south, east or west
that we shouldn’t consider
without affection and empathy.
No matter how far South Africa,
no matter how distant the moon,
they’re part of us by right:
there’s not a single spot anywhere
we’re not a part of. We issue from everywhere.
> Cotton-Barratt could have been thrown out without any possibility of discussion. I am reliability told this is the policy of some UK universities.
Depending on what 'discussion' means here, I'd be surprised. It would be illegal to fire someone without due process. Whether discussion would be public as in here is a different matter; there tends to be a push towards confidentiality.
For balance: I've been an advocate for victims in several similar cases in UK universities, at least one of which was considerably more severe than what i've seen described in this case. I've encountered intervention and pressure from senior academic/administrative figures to discourage formal complaints being submitted, resulting in zero consequences for the perpetrator, and the victims leaving their roles. I would expect this to be the outcome more often on average than the very strong reaction Nathan describes.
I can't imagine it helped in winning allies in Oxford, but relationship with Faculty/University was already highly dysfunctional. (I was consulted as part of a review re: FHI's position within Oxford and various options before said personal controversies).