It is part of the foundation of quantum mechanics.
Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies is in the range of 100,000 words (348 pages * roughly 300 words per page).
I'm not familiar with it, but looking around it isn't even clear if it even lays out any sort of concrete theory.
At the risk of misrepresenting the book, since I don't have it in front of me, here's what bothered me most: stating early that AI is basically an effort to approximate an optimal Bayesian agent, then much later showing that a Bayesian approach permits AI to scope-creep any human request into a mandate to run amok and convert the visible universe into computronium. That doesn't demonstrate that I should be scared of AI running amok. It demonstrates that the first assumption -- we should Bayes all the things! -- is a bad one.
If that's all I was supposed to learn from all the running-amok examples, who's the warning aimed at? AFAICT the leading academic and industry research in AI/ML isn't pursuing the open-ended-Bayesian approach in the first place, largely isn't pursuing "strong" AI at all. Non-experts are, for other reasons, also in no danger of accidentally making AI that takes over the world.
The book comparison was probably a cheap shot (on the other side of it, Einstein didn't need popular interest/approval for his ideas to matter; I think that is a positive).
I think as much as anything the comparison is worthless because we can look backwards at Einstein.
Like always, alarmist material sells better than realism.
Would you elaborate? It's got some pretty big names recommending it. And Bostrom himself is an Oxford University professor.