boppinz

I think this is hardly the genocide-denial you think it is. In the Gaddafi case, I doubt he really sides with a military dictator.

His critique has always been how the West intervenes, but mainly for economic security and superiority. We don't give much of a rat's-ass about installing a fair democracy, if that's even what these countries want, so much as installing someone who agrees with us (see: Reagan in South America)

nah, I think a lot of armchair philosopher techies on here could use some alternate opinions and dialectics.

The primary reason for bringing him up (or any philosopher on this forum, really) is the nexus of ethics and AI. Although we haven't particularly let ethics stop us from a lot of high-tech atrocities throughout the past century, in the military field or otherwise (I'm thinking private equity and rampant credit use).

Laymen need people who can synthesize the works of academics/researchers.

If someone like Chomsky wasn't talking about "faciness" and the ethics of ChatGPT, would anyone really bring that up? In an academic setting or otherwise.

This again also discredits his work as an academic for coining and bringing to light topics like CFGs.

Or in another similar vein: Bill Nye helps to distill scientific concepts for children (and adults too). There is something to be said for him helping to engage some students more in science, AND for whatever interpretation and analysis of Creationism vs. Evolution he did at that debate with Ken Ham, for the lay people. To a degree, it doesn't matter if he got every one of his points 100% logically sound, it can be a springboard that hopefully gives theists some food for thought on why Evolution is the best we empirically have and that the Bible isn't a primary source for citing.

So I again ask who you would rather speak to me about these topics, or am I supposed to just dig through thousands of scholarly articles and hope the ones I discuss and cite have the "correct" opinion and rhetorical skils?

I'm sorry but that discredits his wide history as a modern intellectual. He did philosophy and linguistics from the start.

Like it's fine to not agree with him, but he often offers a great introduction to topics like war and labor organizing for folks. His pop science is at least based on real science and his own reasoning.

And who would you suggest instead? If you say anyone before the 1960s but filtered through the likes of Jordan Peterson or Steven Pinker I'm going to have a hernia. THEY are pop science crap.