In a significant development this week, Oxford University made the decision to close the Future of Humanity Institute, an academic center dedicated to exploring long-termism and other philosophies endorsed by Silicon Valley. The institute, which had been in operation for 19 years, was led by Swedish-born philosopher Nick Bostrom, whose writings on the potential long-term threats posed by artificial intelligence had garnered him celebrity status among the tech elite and consistently placed him on lists of top global thinkers.
You can open Table of Contents show
The Future of Humanity Institute had received notable support from prominent figures in the tech world, including a £1 million donation from Elon Musk in 2015 through a sister organization to fund research into the existential risks associated with AI. Musk, along with other influential individuals such as Sam Altman of OpenAI and Microsoft’s Bill Gates, had also provided endorsem*nts for Bostrom’s 2014 bestselling book, Superintelligence. Musk, in particular, had been a vocal advocate for Bostrom’s ideas, tweeting in 2014, “Worth reading Superintelligence by Bostrom. We need to be super careful with AI. Potentially more dangerous than nukes.”
Prominent Supporters and Substantial Funding
The Future of Humanity Institute had attracted significant financial support over the years, reflecting the growing interest in long-termism and the potential risks associated with advanced technologies. In addition to Musk’s £1 million donation in 2015, the institute received a substantial £13.3 million grant in 2018 from the Open Philanthropy Project, a non-profit organization backed by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz. These investments underscored the importance placed on the institute’s research and its potential to shape the discourse around the long-term future of humanity.
Closure Amid Controversy and Scandals
However, the closure of Bostrom’s institute comes at a time when the effective altruism and long-termism movements, which he had been instrumental in championing, have become embroiled in various scandals related to racism, sexual harassment, and financial impropriety. Bostrom himself faced criticism last year after a decades-old email surfaced in which he made racist remarks, including claiming that “Blacks are more stupid than whites” and using the N-word. In response to the revelation, Bostrom issued an apology and subsequently resigned from his position at Oxford following the institute’s closure.
The Future of Humanity Institute’s shuttering is the latest setback for the effective altruism movement, which has faced increased scrutiny and criticism in recent years. The movement’s association with Sam Bankman-Fried, the now-disgraced former billionaire and founder of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange, has raised questions about the movement’s integrity and the potential for its ideas to be used to whitewash the reputations of controversial figures. Additionally, concerns have been raised about the tangible impact and effectiveness of organizations aligned with effective altruism, leading to a growing skepticism about the movement’s claimed objectives and methods.
“Administrative Headwinds” and Bureaucratic Challenges
In a lengthy final report published on the Future of Humanity Institute’s website, Bostrom reflected on the closure, praising the work accomplished by the center while also acknowledging the “administrative headwinds” and bureaucratic challenges it faced within Oxford’s academic structure. Despite being housed within the university’s philosophy department, the majority of the institute’s research team had come to consist of non-philosophers, leading to what Bostrom described as a “pressure to conform.”
Bostrom revealed that the institute’s closure was the culmination of a process that had been unfolding over several years. Initially funded for a three-year period starting in 2005, the institute’s funding had been extended multiple times. However, in 2020, Oxford implemented a freeze on fundraising and hiring for the institute, and in late 2023, the philosophy department made the decision not to renew the contracts of the remaining staff members.
While expressing his disappointment at the closure, Bostrom also conveyed his gratitude for the support and recognition the institute had received over the years. “FHI was a special place with a unique and highly fruitful intellectual culture,” he stated. “I think we had a good run!”
The Future of Long-Termism and Effective Altruism
The closure of the Future of Humanity Institute marks a significant moment for the long-termism and effective altruism movements, which have gained prominence in recent years thanks in part to the work of Bostrom and other philosophers associated with the institute. The long-termism movement, in particular, has advocated for a greater focus on addressing long-term existential threats to humanity, such as those posed by artificial intelligence and space travel.
However, critics of long-termism argue that the movement’s extreme utilitarian calculus often disregards more immediate and tangible problems, such as climate change and poverty, in favor of speculative future scenarios. Some have also raised concerns about the potential for long-termist ideas to veer into authoritarian territory, citing proposals such as Bostrom’s concept of a universally worn “freedom tag” that would constantly monitor individuals and report suspicious activity to law enforcement.
The effective altruism movement, which is closely related to long-termism, has also faced its share of challenges and controversies. The movement’s association with Sam Bankman-Fried, whose multibillion-dollar fraud scheme came to light last year, has led to accusations that effective altruism leaders ignored warnings about his conduct and used the movement to burnish his reputation. Additionally, questions have been raised about the concrete achievements and impact of effective altruist organizations, leading to increased scrutiny of the movement’s claims and methods.
As the long-termism and effective altruism movements grapple with these challenges and the loss of a key institutional supporter in the form of the Future of Humanity Institute, the future direction and impact of these philosophies remain uncertain. While the closure of Bostrom’s institute is undoubtedly a setback, it also presents an opportunity for reflection and re-evaluation within these movements, as they seek to address the criticisms and controversies that have emerged in recent years.
Looking Ahead
The shuttering of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University marks the end of an era for an influential academic center that played a significant role in shaping discussions around long-term existential risks, particularly those associated with artificial intelligence. Under the leadership of philosopher Nick Bostrom, the institute attracted support from prominent figures in the tech world and helped to popularize the ideas of long-termism and effective altruism.
However, the closure also highlights the challenges and controversies that have plagued these movements in recent years, from scandals involving key figures to questions about their practical impact and potential unintended consequences. As the long-termism and effective altruism communities navigate this difficult period, it will be crucial for them to engage in critical self-reflection and to address the valid concerns raised by critics and skeptics.
Despite the setbacks, the issues and questions raised by the Future of Humanity Institute and its associated philosophical movements remain as pressing as ever. As humanity continues to grapple with the rapid pace of technological change and the potential risks and opportunities it presents, the need for thoughtful, nuanced, and ethically grounded approaches to long-term planning and decision-making will only grow in importance.
While the closure of Bostrom’s institute may mark the end of one chapter in this ongoing conversation, it is unlikely to be the last word on these complex and consequential topics. As new voices and perspectives emerge to shape the discourse around long-termism, effective altruism, and the future of humanity, it will be essential to learn from the lessons of the past while remaining open to new ideas and approaches.
Ultimately, the legacy of the Future of Humanity Institute and the movements it helped to champion will be determined not only by their successes and failures, but also by the ways in which they inspire and inform the next generation of thinkers and leaders grappling with the profound challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
