One interesting detail: In previous years, Joscha Bach gave a talk on AI, consciousness, and related topics (see e.g. [0]). A similar talk was planned for this year as well, but after emails between him and Epstein were made public (see his comment on this in [1]), his talk was canceled. Instead, there appears to have been an event that critically addressed the situation [2]. Unfortunately it was not recorded. Did anyone attend? A discussion between Joscha and his critics would have been really interesting.
Well that discussion talk is not an open discourse about the situation...
He quoted what he believed was scientific evidence in a private conversation that became public, has comments on fashism being efficient are clearly anti-facist and believed to observe a gender stereotype. No matter if the facts were true, it should be possible to discuss such things (especially those you think are facts) in private without getting canceled. Even if they would play in to the hand of racism or sexism if made as public statements.
I found his appology a bit weak, but I also don't see his offense, despite the messages in public being offensive and possibly harmful.
To add some context and to spare readers who, like me, know nothing about Joscha Bach and only little about Epstein from having to go through all the linked material:
The allegations do not appear to involve abuse or moral complicity with Epstein. Instead, they seem to focus on emails Bach exchanged with Epstein concerning IQ, race, and possibly sex. Bach denies these allegations of racism and sexism.
That is at least how I understand the material based on the provided links.
"The main part of the workshop consists of a moderated deliberative discussion with the audience."
I think it is a bit ironic, that Joshua got canceled because of a private conversation - and the debate about it is not recorded, so .. in effect people are more free to express their opinions without getting canceled.
Disapointing to me. Joshua seems to have points of views I find debatable (I don't know much about him) But canceling to not have to stand his opinions? That is very much against the hacker spirit to me and he is a smart guy who knows a lot about AI.
In my dayjob I often run the tech for events, nearly once a week. In my experience known recording/publication tend to make discussions worse and not better than closed room discussions — especially if the topic is controversial. I'd love it if that wasn't the case, but that is not what I observed.
That is because with published recordings it often becomes purely performative, where people aren't actually interested in honestly engaging with each others thoughts, but instead (ab)using the recording as a stage to make a public statement. It essentially becomes a thinly veiled PR battle with multiple actors trying to control the narrative and the ones that prepared well (so not the general audience) tend to dominate the discussion. In my experience that is the opposite of a good discourse.
In the latter case the audience is only the audience that is already present and they are part of the discussion, if everything goes well a feeling of "we need to resolve this issue" is established, with a collective feeling emerging in the room. There is no guarantee that this happens and that there is a result, but in my experience (with well over 400 events) the tendency speaks for the closed room, especially with touchy subjects.
"the tendency speaks for the closed room, especially with touchy subjects."
I do agree to that
I just would have prefered a closed room debate with him invited to adress those issues, not the cancel mentality and then speaking in a close room about him.
"All of the people I know who were friends with this sociopathic child-trafficking pedophile told me he was reformed now" is certainly something to put out there.
He quoted what he believed was scientific evidence in a private conversation that became public, has comments on fashism being efficient are clearly anti-facist and believed to observe a gender stereotype. No matter if the facts were true, it should be possible to discuss such things (especially those you think are facts) in private without getting canceled. Even if they would play in to the hand of racism or sexism if made as public statements.
I found his appology a bit weak, but I also don't see his offense, despite the messages in public being offensive and possibly harmful.