>>13888242I actually was gonna bring that up because both Bostrom's episode and Goff's episodes were very similar with how he approaches their theories.
In my opinion, the main issue there was that Bostrom failed to explain all of the prerequisite background info. There was a massive knowledge gap / inferential distance* that Bostrom underestimated. I don't think Joe's questions were that dumb given his understanding at that time; Bostrom just isn't a great verbal communicator/educator.
>*Inferential Distance between two people with respect to an item of knowledge is the amount of steps or concepts a person needs to share before they can successfully communicate the object level point. This can be thought of as the missing foundation or building block concepts needed to think clearly about a specific thing.>>[...] humans systematically underestimate inferential distances.I don't really buy the simulation hypothesis, or even the simulation argument, necessarily, but I think Bostrom is a respectable philosopher, whereas Goff just came across as... not that bright.
