Nick Bostrom

Swedish philosopher of existential risk and artificial intelligence

Macrostrategy Research Initiative · Sweden · d. 10 March 1973 (Helsingborg, Sweden)

Works on existential risk, the simulation argument, and the conditions under which an advanced artificial intelligence would pursue goals indifferent to human ends. Superintelligence brought these arguments to a wide readership. He founded the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford in 2005; the university closed it in April 2024.

2 storiesOfficial page →

Record

Life: b. 10 March 1973 (Helsingborg, Sweden) — living
Country: Sweden
Period: Contemporary
School: Transhumanism
Affiliation: Macrostrategy Research Initiative
Areas: Existential risk, Philosophy of artificial intelligence, Applied ethics, Probability and anthropic reasoning
Major works: Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy (2002)
Global Catastrophic Risks (2008, edited)
Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (2014)
Deep Utopia: Life and Meaning in a Solved World (2024)
Key concepts: Existential risk, The simulation argument, The orthogonality thesis, Instrumental convergence, The self-sampling assumption
Influenced by: Derek Parfit, I. J. Good, Robin Hanson
Influenced: Toby Ord, William MacAskill, Stuart Russell
Sources: Nick Bostrom, personal site
Wikipedia, Future of Humanity Institute
Wikipedia, Nick Bostrom

Stories

Agenda

From Frankenstein to Skynet: what two centuries of fiction got wrong about machines

The canon of created minds is quoted far more often than it is read. Shelley's creature argues its case and wins it; Kubrick never explains HAL; Garland's film attacks the Turing test rather than staging it. What the canon taught us to expect is a villain with a face, and that is the one thing the harms have lacked.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Nick Bostrom

Culture Desk14 September 2026

Agenda

Amodei wants the AI frontier paced but names no authority that could bind it

Dario Amodei's essay of 12 September argues that capability is now outrunning oversight, and proposes embedded evaluators, industry standards and a deal with China. The argument about rates is stronger than its critics allow. The mechanism is weaker, because nothing in it can compel anyone.