I had the opposite impression. Bostrom is just making up nonsense, then dressing it with fancy words and big numbers to prevent people from calling out his bullshit. It's the opposite of clear. If you look a little deeper he has nothing meaningful to offer in any field.

His argument is extremely clear. It's just unclear to anyone with absolutely no background knowledge, like Joe. He didn't explain it in the clearest way on the podcast because Joe was missing a lot of necessary basics, but if he sat down with Joe for longer and perhaps drew a diagram or something, I think he'd get it.

Perhaps "clear" isn't the right word. Sometimes when someone is spouting total nonsense I initially assume that I didn't understand them clearly because obviously no educated, articulate person could actually be that stupid. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, right? But no, in Bostrom's case it's total unsupported bullshit all the way down regardless of whether he's talking about AGI / singularity / simulations / etc. A complete and utter waste of time. It's disappointing that he's managed to con so many otherwise intelligent people into taking him seriously and buying his books.

Please refute his simulation argument and arguments related to AGI, then. I find pretty much everything he says to be supported and insightful. If so many intelligent people like and agree with him, maybe the issue is with your understanding of his arguments than with the arguments themselves.

How would one "con" so many intelligent people for so many years with purely logical arguments, exactly? An argument is either coherent and valid and sound or it isn't. There's no room for conning or personal charm or anything related to the person themselves.

my impression is that you seem to have an emotional commitment to your position. why do you say that bostrom is "that stupid" talking about "bullshit all the way down" and is "conning" people?

It is actually not that complex of an argument. Well, in the sense that it doesn't strike me as over intellectualized and/or over complicated.

Actually, the simulation argument is solid. One of the three possibilities Bostrom outlines absolutely must be true.

Well, Bostrom states that there will be more ideas in the future that may change the simulation theory. It's the latest most plausable theory.

It may change the probabilities of the various outcomes entailed by the argument, it won't change the argument itself or its conclusions.