This is incorrect. Among his degrees, Bostrom has a master's in computational neuroscience. His arguments have also convinced PhD neuroscientists (such as Sam Harris) and computer scientists (such as Stuart Russell) about the potential dangers of AI.
It would be a different story if he published in the meantime, but he did not. Nor did he work on practical projects in industry or anything. He shifted gears to philosophical speculation which he has done since.
There are good arguments to be made against Bostrom's Superintelligence, but malignments and surface analogies aren't appropriate. Please engage the ideas, not the man.
Read what I wrote again please. I think you misinterpreted.
There is also the Advances in Cognitive Systems journal and associated conference, which is AGI even if they prefer to avoid that specific acronym:
And there are always a small but growing number of papers related to AGI in each AAAI conference.
2. Setting aside cogsys (CogSci is a whole different beast than AI/ML in computer science), the only impactful journal/conference you've listed is AAAI.
3. Papers are also typically incremental and all of the AGI papers I've seen in AAAI (and there have been very few) are no different, tackling some small theoretical subproblem.
4. I'm not saying the research is useless. It's very valuable. But it's is pure theory right now, and to claim it has insights for us about what AGI would actually look like is very premature.
We most certainly do understand enough to formulate questions, and even answer some of them. The problem is that the people making the most noise (Bostrom et al) are not trained in neuroscience or computer science, nor do they have practical experience in deploying working systems. They have about as much training and expertise as science fiction writers, and the end result is similar.