Hacker News Reader

Comment by kherud | Hacker News Reader

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.

[0] https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-self-models-of-loving-grace

[1] https://joscha.substack.com/p/on-the-jeffrey-epstein-affair

[2] https://events.ccc.de/congress/2025/hub/en/event/detail/tech...

View on HN

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.

I think people have little patience lately for tolerating private discussion they find objectionable with Epstein.

I think people have little patience (or rather fear) to engage with different points of view in general these days.

I think people have found out the hard way that the paradox of tolerance is real.

No tolerance for the intolerant.

Can you show me, where exactly Joshua Bach stands for intolerance?

You've read the email exchange with epstein?

How billions dieng to famine would be a good thing or culling the elderly and infirm?

Don't even know why I bother answering.

I read just parts of it. Can you link or explain what you mean here? I do not understand the connection to intolerance.

It's linked right above in this chain. I am not going to discuss why killing people is intolerant. That's just silly even for hn standards.

You edited your post after I commented and there was nothing about killing there before. (Just something about haters)

Indeed not HN standards. And if Joshua said killing people is good, I am interested in a full quote.

also interested in the source. read a compilation of mails and this was not in there.

If you are going to defend someone you have no or very distant association with like you stated in another reply. Maybe just maybe read what everyone else is talking about, in this chain it would be his email exchange with epstein. Thanks for making ME read that pseudo intellectual shit again so YOU don't have to.

"too many people, so many mass executions of the elderly and infirm make sense is the fundamental fact that everyone dies at some time .make it imporrisbole to ask so why not earilier. if the brain discards unused neurons, why shold socieity keep their equivalent."

https://www.jmail.world/thread/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026413?view=i...

EDIT: There was no comment before I edited mine. @dang can probably timestamp it if you want to make a fuss about.

Maybe present the full quote?

The radical idea of treating individuals in a society as cells and the society itself as a well-organized organism is fascism, or course. Probably the most efficient and rationally stringent way of governance, if someone could pull it off in a sustainable way; and if it is aggressive and expansive, its efficiency makes it a virus that everybody will want to stomp out. Fascism makes romantic doo-gooders like me very uncomfortable"

He dares to explore radical taboo ideas and concludes that it would be fascism, which he is not comfortable with.

So .. I see nothing where he is intolerant of anything. But you seem not tolerant for people daring to explore certain thoughts in general? Even if they reach the conclusion this is not the way to go. (And maybe even an attempt at dissuading the other person of those concepts)

That's why I didn't want to quote anything because it's just deteriorating into a debate club about hypotheticals.

To extend your "full" quote: "The radical idea of treating individuals in a society as cells and the society itself as a well-Organized organism is fascism, or course. Probably the most efficient and rationally stringent way of governance, if someone could pull it off in a sustainable way… I rather like the treatment Fascism gets in the Amazon Series ‘The Man in the High Castle’, which explores what would have happened if the Germans and Japanese had won the war: A society that tries to function as a brutal and ruthlessly efficient machine, eliminating all social and evolutionary slack. It is very dark, but not a flat caricature of pointless evil for its own sake."

Let's stay away from killing people how about the misogyny?:

"You cannot learn what does not attract your attention. Women tend to find abstract systems, conflicts and mechanisms intrinsically boring."

"Let's stay away from killing people how about the misogyny?:

"You cannot learn what does not attract your attention. Women tend to find abstract systems, conflicts and mechanisms intrinsically boring.""

I am not an expert, but that is not misogyny in my book. Not sure about the part about conflicts, but in general it matches my observation as well, women tend to find abstract things boring. That does not say ALL women are like this, or ALL men like abstract things, but on average this is the trend. And when you compare the ratio of men / women who go into in the abstract scientific field, it seems backed up by real world data (also when accounting for existing sexism in the field).

In general, Joshua is indeed a weird guy, the main thing I remember from him as a guest from a alternativlos podcast is:

He always was exited for AGI to finally have someone smart enough to talk to.

Well, I don't subscribe to that, nor his openness for certain other positions, but he is definitely not a fascist. And I believe I am sort of an expert here, as I exposed and confronted quite some of those who tried to infiltrate alternative groups I am part of. (Also I live in saxony. I know cryptonazi talk.) So yes, I do see some signs that are worth debating. Giving him a chance to clarify and reconsider.

But canceling and blocking him will just push him to that side for good. And that would be a shame.

"EDIT: There was no comment before I edited mine. @dang can probably timestamp it if you want to make a fuss about."

Dang would just flag us both if we make a fuss here.

And what you apparently mean is, that when you started to edit your comment, my answer wasn't there. But it was already, after you edited.

Anyway, I am fine with calling this part a missunderstanding.

Zero trust, bravo.

oh, did not read that one...

Thats why hamas got chancelled?

I believe it was more about actions, not thoughts.

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.

For context, this is the email exchange between Joscha and Epstein: https://www.jmail.world/thread/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026406?view=i... (original doc: https://epstein-emails.sfo3.digitaloceanspaces.com/docs/HOUS...).

Assembly events like [2] are not recorded because they are largely self-organized and barely moderated (if at all).

This one was moderated, though.

"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.

Ah okay, maybe I don't know enough a out how it went down

He did have an anual talk beginning with 30C3

https://media.ccc.de/search?p=Joscha

"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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com