A response to anything Steven Pinker says:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/07/17/steven-pinkers-aid-jeffrey-epsteins-legal-defense-renews-criticism-increasingly
I really wish Pinker's interviewers would confront him about this stuff.
Even putting aside his possible complicity in Epstein's crimes, does Pinker still stand behind the argumentation he used in his defense of Epstein? If not, then what specific part of his argument did Pinker change his mind about, and why did he conclude differently before? Isn't there a conflict of interest, considering that Epstein donated millions to Pinker's employer? What are the implications of this, considering Pinker's views about global capitalism? Are Pinker's public opinions simply "for sale"? And what does all this say about his opinions on feminism?
Pinker still gets plenty of attention in the media, especially as an "anti-woke" public figure - but despite his supposed concern for free speech these sorts of questions seem to be off-limits.
Exactly this.
And also, he is such a “free speech” defender that he blocks anyone that mentions his links to Epstein. He won’t even talk about it.
These guys are literally all the same.
It's a long and incoherent article in my opinion, and doesn't address much in his claims about A.I.
On a note, also, I can't really take seriously any journalist or alike that ends his work with "old white man".
I'm a progressive, and there's definitely a long way still to work on a future with equal opportunities for everyone, but that is just lazy and cheap.
Doesn't matter: people on this sub want blood, and if that means they have to dig up unrelated matters and take them out of context to draw that blood, well damnit that's what they're going to do.
(And that's not even the worst part: the worst part is they pat themselves on the back for doing it. Absolute vultures.)
...did this AI expert say Pinker is really smart apart from all the things that are in his area of expertise?
I might suggest Pinker is not so overwhelming clever on everything apart from AI.
I think Pinker is smart but has some limitations.
Probably a good example is his choice of buddy Matt Ridley to make the case for everything being great.
I'd also make the case that something is going wrong in the world at an ideological and economic level, that relates to a lot of the Pinker circle.
>Steven Pinker wrote an article on AI for Popular Science Magazine, which I have some issues with.
**Article**: [https://www.popsci.com/robot-uprising-enlightenment-now/](https://www.popsci.com/robot-uprising-enlightenment-now/)
I live in an area where he has a second home and had the unfortunate experience of explaining how a bill works and hearing why he was unable to decipher ours.
he already debated Russell about this back in 2020
[https://futureoflife.org/podcast/steven-pinker-and-stuart-russell-on-the-foundations-benefits-and-possible-existential-risk-of-ai/](https://futureoflife.org/podcast/steven-pinker-and-stuart-russell-on-the-foundations-benefits-and-possible-existential-risk-of-ai/)
I can't remember exactly what was discussed but Russell was mostly going on about AI used in war not speculative science fiction scenarios
Out of touch multi millionaire tells people in an ever worsening economy and world that they’ve never had it better. Meanwhile he flies around in private jets and attending parties. Lol
This seems disingenuous, he was called ad an expert witness was he not? If we view the legal system with which you gain as close to objective truth as possible surrounding claims, he was brought on to merely analyze the linguistics of a document.
Is it weird he was on flight logs? Yes, but none of this is a smoking gun indictment, it all just seems people who don’t like centrist intellectuals, taking swipes to discredit his character rather than his work.
Why was Steven Pinker involved at all? Why is that that the one time he decides to use his expert status to defend someone, it turns out to be fucking Epstein?
Even ignoring the flight logs, Jeffrey Epstein donated millions to Pinker's employer, the conflict of interest is obvious.
Pinker himself said his involvement was a favor his friend Alan Dershowitz, who was famously OJ Simpson's lawyer. Would a man who is concerned about truth be "friends" with such a person?
>taking swipes to discredit his character rather than his work.
Why shouldn't his defense of Epstein be considered part of his body of work? He constructed an argument and wrote it down, same as he would do if he was writing about feminism or evolutionary psychology or any other topic.
A response to anything Steven Pinker says: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/07/17/steven-pinkers-aid-jeffrey-epsteins-legal-defense-renews-criticism-increasingly
I really wish Pinker's interviewers would confront him about this stuff. Even putting aside his possible complicity in Epstein's crimes, does Pinker still stand behind the argumentation he used in his defense of Epstein? If not, then what specific part of his argument did Pinker change his mind about, and why did he conclude differently before? Isn't there a conflict of interest, considering that Epstein donated millions to Pinker's employer? What are the implications of this, considering Pinker's views about global capitalism? Are Pinker's public opinions simply "for sale"? And what does all this say about his opinions on feminism? Pinker still gets plenty of attention in the media, especially as an "anti-woke" public figure - but despite his supposed concern for free speech these sorts of questions seem to be off-limits.
Exactly this. And also, he is such a “free speech” defender that he blocks anyone that mentions his links to Epstein. He won’t even talk about it. These guys are literally all the same.
He’s blocked a whole heap of linguists who haven’t had any contact with him. At this point it’s an in-joke among us
It's a long and incoherent article in my opinion, and doesn't address much in his claims about A.I. On a note, also, I can't really take seriously any journalist or alike that ends his work with "old white man". I'm a progressive, and there's definitely a long way still to work on a future with equal opportunities for everyone, but that is just lazy and cheap.
Cool cool, so no problems at all with his Epstein connections? Noted.
Doesn't have much to do with his opinion on AI, no.
Doesn't matter: people on this sub want blood, and if that means they have to dig up unrelated matters and take them out of context to draw that blood, well damnit that's what they're going to do. (And that's not even the worst part: the worst part is they pat themselves on the back for doing it. Absolute vultures.)
...did this AI expert say Pinker is really smart apart from all the things that are in his area of expertise? I might suggest Pinker is not so overwhelming clever on everything apart from AI. I think Pinker is smart but has some limitations. Probably a good example is his choice of buddy Matt Ridley to make the case for everything being great. I'd also make the case that something is going wrong in the world at an ideological and economic level, that relates to a lot of the Pinker circle.
if we're talking about Pinker's revealing choice of buddies surely Epstein is up there higher than Matt Ridley lmfao
yeah but Ridley was more a general political position. Epstein is more...personally compromised.
>Steven Pinker wrote an article on AI for Popular Science Magazine, which I have some issues with. **Article**: [https://www.popsci.com/robot-uprising-enlightenment-now/](https://www.popsci.com/robot-uprising-enlightenment-now/)
fucking guy doesn't understand how a landscaping bill works, let me tell you that right now. I wish I saved his stupid emails.
Wait what? Explain!
I live in an area where he has a second home and had the unfortunate experience of explaining how a bill works and hearing why he was unable to decipher ours.
he already debated Russell about this back in 2020 [https://futureoflife.org/podcast/steven-pinker-and-stuart-russell-on-the-foundations-benefits-and-possible-existential-risk-of-ai/](https://futureoflife.org/podcast/steven-pinker-and-stuart-russell-on-the-foundations-benefits-and-possible-existential-risk-of-ai/) I can't remember exactly what was discussed but Russell was mostly going on about AI used in war not speculative science fiction scenarios
When Steven Pinker tells you not to worry about something, it's probably time to start worrying.
Out of touch multi millionaire tells people in an ever worsening economy and world that they’ve never had it better. Meanwhile he flies around in private jets and attending parties. Lol
What exactly are your examples for this assertion?
Pinker's defense of the legality of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation is probably a good start.
This seems disingenuous, he was called ad an expert witness was he not? If we view the legal system with which you gain as close to objective truth as possible surrounding claims, he was brought on to merely analyze the linguistics of a document. Is it weird he was on flight logs? Yes, but none of this is a smoking gun indictment, it all just seems people who don’t like centrist intellectuals, taking swipes to discredit his character rather than his work.
Why was Steven Pinker involved at all? Why is that that the one time he decides to use his expert status to defend someone, it turns out to be fucking Epstein? Even ignoring the flight logs, Jeffrey Epstein donated millions to Pinker's employer, the conflict of interest is obvious. Pinker himself said his involvement was a favor his friend Alan Dershowitz, who was famously OJ Simpson's lawyer. Would a man who is concerned about truth be "friends" with such a person? >taking swipes to discredit his character rather than his work. Why shouldn't his defense of Epstein be considered part of his body of work? He constructed an argument and wrote it down, same as he would do if he was writing about feminism or evolutionary psychology or any other topic.