> Professor Lloyd remained friends with Epstein after his conviction in 2008.
He visited Epstein at his office in Florida during the period of Epstein’s criminal sentence.
Professor Lloyd also visited Epstein’s private island, though for only a few hours for lunch, and
he has acknowledged Epstein in his academic publications. While Professor Lloyd clearly
valued Epstein as a source of potential funding, he also told us he believed that, by continuing to
engage with Epstein post-conviction, he could be part of Epstein’s rehabilitation.
Professor Lloyd told us that, in 2005 or 2006 (before Epstein’s conviction), Epstein gave
him a personal $60,000 gift to support his MIT research that Professor Lloyd did not submit
through MIT. In possible violation of MIT policies and certainly in violation of MIT norms,
Professor Lloyd deposited the gift into a personal bank account and did not report it to MIT.
> Eventually, in July 2016, Professor Lloyd affirmatively contacted Epstein by email to ask for
funding to support his upcoming sabbatical. On June 1, 2017, Epstein emailed his accountant
and Professor Lloyd: “send 125 k to mit for seth lloyd from gratitude.”
My jaw dropped when I read page 9 of the report, it says "Professor Minsky (who passed away in 2016) had worked with Epstein to organize an off-campus conference on artificial intelligence that same year."
That's quite a charitable characterization! The conference in question wasn't just any "off-campus conference" -- it was held on Epstein's island.
Minsky had also organized a two-day symposium on Epstein's island several years prior (in 2002), a fact also totally omitted from the report.
> Professor Lloyd also visited Epstein’s private island, though for only a few hours for lunch
Normally one would give the benefit of the doubt, but given the abhorrent acts people were perpetrating or turning a blind eye to in this case, I'm inclined not to. Hence this question of fact:
Unless there are credible witnesses attesting to the fact that he spent his few hours on that island eating lunch, the report should refrain from speculation and simply say "he visited Epstein's island for a few hours." We don't know what he was doing.
Harvard Professor Mark Newman also has similar shading dealings with Epstein. His own book, SuperCooperators [1], has nearly 3 whole pages dedicated to describing his experiences on Jeffery Epstein's Island, thanking him for all his support and basically sucking up to him by describing his (Epstein's) incredible intelligence. Stephen Hawking even makes an appearance in these stories with a talk about how Epstein rented a submarine so Hawking could experience being underwater. Epstein occurs so frequently in Newman's own book that he even is listed in the index (you can view the index on amazon for free). The book was published in 2011 after Epstein's first convictions.
I find it very hard to believe all these scientist didn't know what was going on nor would I be surprised to find out they participated in it.
Wow. Seth Lloyd is a very well-known name in Quantum Computing. It's pretty shady that he's depositing $50,000 gifts from known sex offenders directly into his personal bank account...
> Professor Lloyd also visited Epstein’s private island, though for only a few hours for lunch,
I live a fairly privileged life as a U.S. West Coast techie...and stopping at a private island for a few hours sounds crazy. Do non-billionaire people (active academics at that) really lead lives like this? `
If Epstein was in fact blackmailing the rich and famous, or running a sex trafficking operation for profit, how does he benefit from supplying donations (and whatever else he allegedly supplied) to a quantum computing professor?
> After meeting Epstein in February 2013, Ito conducted what he described as “due diligence” into Epstein. Ito told us that he performed a Google search of Epstein and also spoke with certain individuals to learn more. According to Ito, the “influential” people with whom he spoke included Nicholas Negroponte, Media Lab co-founder and Professor Post-Tenure of Media Arts and Sciences; members of the Media Lab Advisory Council; tech billionaires, including a former LinkedIn senior executive and co-founder; and a well-known Harvard Law School professor. Ito also met other influential individuals at meetings with Epstein, including Woody Allen, a senior executive at the Hyatt Corporation, and a former prime minister of Israel. Ito explained that these meetings and discussions influenced his view of Epstein.
> To the contrary, members of MIT’s Senior Team were wary of Epstein and nearly returned his May 2013 donation, the first donation of which they became aware
>In addition to his own donations, Epstein claimed to have arranged for donations to MIT from other wealthy individuals. In 2014, Epstein claimed to have arranged for Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates to provide an anonymous $2 million donation to the Media Lab.
Ah yes, Woody Allen, the well-known judge of character when it comes to matters of child sexual abuse.
The "former prime minister of Israel" was probably Ehud Barak, who solicited $1 million in seed money from Epstein for his startup Carbyne, received large political donations from Epstein's benefactor Les Wexner, and was a frequent guest at Epstein's NYC mansion.
1) Negroponte responded: “I know him quite well. The person who is his closest friend is Marvin
Minsky, who even visited him in jail. I would take Berlusconi’s money, so why not Jeff.” (By
March 2013, Berlusconi, the former Prime Minister of Italy, had been accused of hiring
underaged prostitutes and dating underaged girls.)
2)“I’ve also talked to Nicholas [Negroponte] as well who had
met him and he also agrees that we should treat Jeffrey with respect.”
3)Negroponte pushed back on concealing Epstein’s attendance, responding (in part) “Of course he
can come and would be welcome …. I would make absolutely no fuss over his coming and
welcome home [sic] 100%.”
I'm really surprise Marvin visited him in jail. It's not out of character of him (he was really a kind human) but I'm surprised he had that close a relationship.
I like Nicholas a lot but some of his remarks do surprise me.
I've seen some articles written by former MIT Media Lab employees, and they made it seem like Epstein's involvement and history was basically an open secret that they weren't allowed to mention in emails or documents.
There was a Medium article that said Epstein brought young Eastern European women (likely trafficked) with him to campus. (If I can find it I will edit this comment) I think it says a lot about their culture, that people working there are encouraged to look the other way when a billionaire is involved.
Also, looking at the report, it is obvious that Ito was completely aware of Epstein's history, and the risks of associating with him, but continued to invite him to MIT's campus.
You know, I was thinking to myself what it would take to take Epstein money. How much would count? And the truth is that no amount really works. Most of us middle-class folk would probably say no pretty fast if offered the choice because the best way to stay safe from the mob is to not let it turn its Eye of Sauron on you. The instinct that keeps me far is less morality than self-preservation. Epstein himself had billions and he died in a jail cell. I'd take the deal if I were destitute, though.
Interestingly, lots of these people weren't destitute. But these people (more intelligent than I am) fell for a trick I would have fallen for a hundred times faster: the slow drip. "Come visit my island. I'll fly you there". Of course I say "yes". Then when I'm there, everyone is busy having sex with kids. I'm standing there like gawking like an idiot. I have no sex with kids. I'm the only one who will say that. I'm already screwed. Well played, mob, well played. If I whistle blow the kid-screwing then they'll get in front of me. I'll commit suicide because apparently I had this secret paedophilia. The Internet will say "Well, junba wasn't a trustworthy guy ultimately. They found child porn on his computer". I'm not saying that some of the guys were innocent. I'm saying that given the existence of adversaries bent on information manipulation, no one external can determine if you're innocent or not. Better to stay far from the Eye of Sauron.
> At the end of the discussion, there was a consensus, reached by Morgan, Ruiz, and
Newton, to keep Epstein’s $100,000 donation to the Media Lab and to accept further donations
from him so long as: (1) each donation would be recorded as anonymous, and Epstein could not publicize it; (2) the donations would be relatively small; and (3) the donations would be unrestricted.
Right, they thought really hard about it and their moral compass told them to sweep it under the carpet.
Then the emails from Ito to Newton and the others at Resource Development are interesting. Here is one, Ito tries hard convince others to let him keep the money.
> I’m actively developing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and I’d like to know your thinking on this. More important than this $100K is what happens if he is interested in a much larger gift. My previous understanding was that if it was not accounted or named—or if the gift might be given anonymously—it was likely to be OK.
He is dangling future bags of money in front of them. "Just think of all the funding we could be getting. And look, we've already hid it as anonymous before, surely we can do it again".
That's some very effective tactics. Epstein did that too, he started giving smaller amounts of money first to see how it goes. Those processed, people made excuses. Once that happened they were hooked into the scheme and ready to be roped in even more. Ito was using the same tactics.
this whole thread bothers me, but not for the usual reasons.
1) everyone is up on their high horses pretending that they somehow have an absolute moral compass that would prevent them from doing any wrong. To me it looks like people over at MIT are trying to do the right thing (with this external investigation) and maybe there will be some lessons learned from this whole episode.
2) everyone is outraged (rightfully) at what this guy/monster did but I believe we are missing a bigger point here: people abuse power every damn day. people fuck over people in a weak position - that cannot defend themselves - every damn day.
It sounds like some lives are more important than other when it comes to capturing the moral highground. What about minimum wage workers living in poverty, people that deperately need health care or civilians in war zones?
Nobody gives a damn about what has become the new normal, but we're outraged that some guy had assistants in their 20s and basically ran a prostitution ring on his island.
3) a subset of the same people that probably visited the island have decided to silence the guy because he probably knew too much. The same people that had no problem having sex with underage, sexually exploited girls, decided to abuse their power once more. And we're outraged that a bunch of MIT professors took donations to pursuit their research.
Honestly at this point I would just let law enforcement do their thing and would focus on preventing/exposing situations such of this vs being revisionists about what should have been done.
A large defense contractor in Massachusetts conducted research for the CIA in support of its post-9/11 enhanced interrogation program. Stephen Kosslyn, formerly affiliated with the Harvard psychology department, helped this defense contractor win the contract and served as an academic advisor to the program for the CIA.
Kosslyn was also responsible for creating a position for Jeffrey Epstein at Harvard in the psychology department, according to a recent report published by Harvard's president Lawrence Bacow.
Given Epstein's alleged connection to CIA, one wonders what role it played in helping land this disgraceful $20 million program in in this defense contractor's lap?
> In September, in response to revelations about engagements between MIT and Jeffrey Epstein...
This isn't true, right? MIT knew about those engagements from as far back as 2013. This is the first sentence in the first answer to the first question and it just isn't correct. What _actually_ happened in September is a bunch of fucking terrible press for MIT. This whole thing is just so sad and at the end of all this is a bunch of human beings who were treated so poorly by some, and in some ways almost worse, treated indifferently by so many others.
> In September, in response to revelations about engagements between MIT and Jeffrey Epstein, President Reif and the Executive Committee of the MIT Corporation asked MIT's general counsel to retain a law firm to design and conduct a review of the facts surrounding those engagements.
It is the case that Goodwin Procter's fact-finding investigation began in September. And the report details interactions in 2012 and 2013, including who was aware of what at the time. You can read the report here: http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf
Anybody else remember the death of Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz? And what role MIT played in it? And the “conspiracy theories” surrounding his death? It may be a good time to look at that again.
Also don't forget that Rafael Reif was responsible for orchestrating the massive coverup of fraud at MIT Lincoln Laboratory regarding Ted Postol's allegations of fraudulent missile defense tests:
If the Department of Defense had not punted on the investigation, then provost Rafael Reif and his supervisor president Susan Hockfield would be serving time in a federal penitentiary with former dean of MIT Sloan School of Management Gabriel Bitran
What appears surprising to me is how easy the funded researchers apparently got away with it.
- Profs Lloyd and Oxman, still in service
- Joscha Bach, who is the VP of research at the AI foundation (https://aifoundation.com/about/), and declined to comment. I don’t know whether someone with such track record should be educating on the future of AI?
Those two things are not related. "Give me all the e-mails and Sharepoints on the Exchange server" and "I want to talk to these 59 people" are separate requests.
Can someone explain to me what harm was caused by MIT accepting anonymous donations from Jeffrey Epstein? As an MIT alum I don't understand what the problem is.
Often times outside law firms handle investigations like this. MIT clearly had some failed policies where they were laundering the reputation of a despicable person for donations, which shouldn't happen. An internal investigation would be strongly biased to find no wrong-doing. Ostensibly, an outside investigation is more neutral (even though MIT is still paying for it so they're clearly biased to be soft too...)
This is answered in part in the final q; so that the inquiry could have independence from MIT’s general counsel:
> When Epstein’s donations to MIT were revealed, MIT’s general counsel retained Goodwin Procter, a law firm that has worked with the Institute in the past and that has extensive experience conducting internal investigations at academic institutions. That background allowed the firm to get up to speed quickly as it began its review. Soon thereafter, the Executive Committee engaged the law firm Paul Weiss, which also has extensive experience leading internal investigations and advising boards of directors but no prior relationship with MIT. From a governance perspective, the Executive Committee felt Paul Weiss’s independence from the Institute was valuable.
The report concludes that President L. Rafael Reif was not aware that the Institute was accepting donations from a convicted sex offender and accused pedophile
Following one of the two $50,000 donations, staff prepared a standard gift-acknowledgment letter to Epstein, and President Reif signed it on Aug. 16, 2012
To conduct a fact-finding operation regarding MIT (and its members') interactions with Epstein and donations contributed by him to the university or its members.
There is a good reason why Rafael Reif only appears in public these days flanked on all sides by brutes from the MIT police department.
During the Vietnam War, Dean Epps was placed under citizen's arrest by the students of Harvard University (as he famously yelled back at them: "Unhand me, you mother-fuckers!") for that organization's complicity in what the UN has now ruled a war crime:
Got to wish protesters today the best of luck getting anywhere near that close to Rafael Reif, with the police detail that he needs to hide behind in order to protect his filthier-than-dirt, self-rationalizing ass from those who might attempt to hold him publicly accountable.
> Epstein was joined by one or two female assistants who appeared to be in their twenties, which made some people uncomfortable ... A Media Lab staff member told us that she was "grossed out" during of one Epstein's visits to the Media Lab, both because ... and because Epstein brought female assistants in their twenties with him.
Is anyone interpreting this as "At MIT, it's reasonable to be
prejudiced against young women who claim to have a job in the
philanthropy field. Anyone actually qualified for such a job would
have a different age or a different gender."? If I'm a professor
elsewhere and visit MIT to talk about my research, can my female
graduate student (who did most of the work) safely visit at the same
time, or will she run into the same prejudice? Does the answer depend
on her physical appearance?
People are, quite sensibly, prejudiced against someone convicted of sex crimes involving the exploitation of young women traveling with young women. The prejudice is against him, not the women. The incident and the reactions of the staff involved has been documented in greater detail elsewhere, you can just google it up.
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|6 years ago|reply
http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf
Professor Lloyd's dealings look very, very shady:
> Professor Lloyd remained friends with Epstein after his conviction in 2008. He visited Epstein at his office in Florida during the period of Epstein’s criminal sentence. Professor Lloyd also visited Epstein’s private island, though for only a few hours for lunch, and he has acknowledged Epstein in his academic publications. While Professor Lloyd clearly valued Epstein as a source of potential funding, he also told us he believed that, by continuing to engage with Epstein post-conviction, he could be part of Epstein’s rehabilitation. Professor Lloyd told us that, in 2005 or 2006 (before Epstein’s conviction), Epstein gave him a personal $60,000 gift to support his MIT research that Professor Lloyd did not submit through MIT. In possible violation of MIT policies and certainly in violation of MIT norms, Professor Lloyd deposited the gift into a personal bank account and did not report it to MIT.
> Eventually, in July 2016, Professor Lloyd affirmatively contacted Epstein by email to ask for funding to support his upcoming sabbatical. On June 1, 2017, Epstein emailed his accountant and Professor Lloyd: “send 125 k to mit for seth lloyd from gratitude.”
[+] [-] AlanYx|6 years ago|reply
That's quite a charitable characterization! The conference in question wasn't just any "off-campus conference" -- it was held on Epstein's island.
Minsky had also organized a two-day symposium on Epstein's island several years prior (in 2002), a fact also totally omitted from the report.
[+] [-] sequoia|6 years ago|reply
Normally one would give the benefit of the doubt, but given the abhorrent acts people were perpetrating or turning a blind eye to in this case, I'm inclined not to. Hence this question of fact:
Unless there are credible witnesses attesting to the fact that he spent his few hours on that island eating lunch, the report should refrain from speculation and simply say "he visited Epstein's island for a few hours." We don't know what he was doing.
[+] [-] throwaway21210|6 years ago|reply
I find it very hard to believe all these scientist didn't know what was going on nor would I be surprised to find out they participated in it.
[1] (https://www.amazon.com/SuperCooperators-Altruism-Evolution-O...)
[+] [-] gautamcgoel|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ergothus|6 years ago|reply
I live a fairly privileged life as a U.S. West Coast techie...and stopping at a private island for a few hours sounds crazy. Do non-billionaire people (active academics at that) really lead lives like this? `
[+] [-] selfishgene|6 years ago|reply
Lloyd should resign from MIT immediately. There is simply no excuse for soliciting money from a child trafficking racketeer like Jeffrey Epstein.
If your research is worth pursuing, compete honestly for federal research grants like everyone else.
[+] [-] thatsenough|6 years ago|reply
If Epstein was in fact blackmailing the rich and famous, or running a sex trafficking operation for profit, how does he benefit from supplying donations (and whatever else he allegedly supplied) to a quantum computing professor?
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|6 years ago|reply
I also think it's easy to say "how could they do x and y with a 17 year old..." but humans are made of flesh and blood.
[+] [-] bobbles|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malvosenior|6 years ago|reply
http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf
> After meeting Epstein in February 2013, Ito conducted what he described as “due diligence” into Epstein. Ito told us that he performed a Google search of Epstein and also spoke with certain individuals to learn more. According to Ito, the “influential” people with whom he spoke included Nicholas Negroponte, Media Lab co-founder and Professor Post-Tenure of Media Arts and Sciences; members of the Media Lab Advisory Council; tech billionaires, including a former LinkedIn senior executive and co-founder; and a well-known Harvard Law School professor. Ito also met other influential individuals at meetings with Epstein, including Woody Allen, a senior executive at the Hyatt Corporation, and a former prime minister of Israel. Ito explained that these meetings and discussions influenced his view of Epstein.
[+] [-] krick|6 years ago|reply
I love the word "nearly" here. Just saying.
[+] [-] ericb|6 years ago|reply
Epstein was like a landing page with customer logos from LinkedIn, Microsoft, MIT, and Harvard.
[+] [-] Jerry2|6 years ago|reply
>In addition to his own donations, Epstein claimed to have arranged for donations to MIT from other wealthy individuals. In 2014, Epstein claimed to have arranged for Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates to provide an anonymous $2 million donation to the Media Lab.
From the PDF linked above: http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf
[+] [-] empath75|6 years ago|reply
almost certainly Alan Dershowitz, who is up to his eyeballs in epstein dirt.
[+] [-] AndrewBissell|6 years ago|reply
The "former prime minister of Israel" was probably Ehud Barak, who solicited $1 million in seed money from Epstein for his startup Carbyne, received large political donations from Epstein's benefactor Les Wexner, and was a frequent guest at Epstein's NYC mansion.
[+] [-] sxcurry|6 years ago|reply
2)“I’ve also talked to Nicholas [Negroponte] as well who had met him and he also agrees that we should treat Jeffrey with respect.”
3)Negroponte pushed back on concealing Epstein’s attendance, responding (in part) “Of course he can come and would be welcome …. I would make absolutely no fuss over his coming and welcome home [sic] 100%.”
Wow, just wow, are there no depths too low?
[+] [-] gumby|6 years ago|reply
I like Nicholas a lot but some of his remarks do surprise me.
[+] [-] 9HZZRfNlpR|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nabnob|6 years ago|reply
There was a Medium article that said Epstein brought young Eastern European women (likely trafficked) with him to campus. (If I can find it I will edit this comment) I think it says a lot about their culture, that people working there are encouraged to look the other way when a billionaire is involved.
Also, looking at the report, it is obvious that Ito was completely aware of Epstein's history, and the risks of associating with him, but continued to invite him to MIT's campus.
[+] [-] scarejunba|6 years ago|reply
Interestingly, lots of these people weren't destitute. But these people (more intelligent than I am) fell for a trick I would have fallen for a hundred times faster: the slow drip. "Come visit my island. I'll fly you there". Of course I say "yes". Then when I'm there, everyone is busy having sex with kids. I'm standing there like gawking like an idiot. I have no sex with kids. I'm the only one who will say that. I'm already screwed. Well played, mob, well played. If I whistle blow the kid-screwing then they'll get in front of me. I'll commit suicide because apparently I had this secret paedophilia. The Internet will say "Well, junba wasn't a trustworthy guy ultimately. They found child porn on his computer". I'm not saying that some of the guys were innocent. I'm saying that given the existence of adversaries bent on information manipulation, no one external can determine if you're innocent or not. Better to stay far from the Eye of Sauron.
[+] [-] rdtsc|6 years ago|reply
Right, they thought really hard about it and their moral compass told them to sweep it under the carpet.
Then the emails from Ito to Newton and the others at Resource Development are interesting. Here is one, Ito tries hard convince others to let him keep the money.
> I’m actively developing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and I’d like to know your thinking on this. More important than this $100K is what happens if he is interested in a much larger gift. My previous understanding was that if it was not accounted or named—or if the gift might be given anonymously—it was likely to be OK.
He is dangling future bags of money in front of them. "Just think of all the funding we could be getting. And look, we've already hid it as anonymous before, surely we can do it again".
That's some very effective tactics. Epstein did that too, he started giving smaller amounts of money first to see how it goes. Those processed, people made excuses. Once that happened they were hooked into the scheme and ready to be roped in even more. Ito was using the same tactics.
[+] [-] rantwasp|6 years ago|reply
1) everyone is up on their high horses pretending that they somehow have an absolute moral compass that would prevent them from doing any wrong. To me it looks like people over at MIT are trying to do the right thing (with this external investigation) and maybe there will be some lessons learned from this whole episode.
2) everyone is outraged (rightfully) at what this guy/monster did but I believe we are missing a bigger point here: people abuse power every damn day. people fuck over people in a weak position - that cannot defend themselves - every damn day. It sounds like some lives are more important than other when it comes to capturing the moral highground. What about minimum wage workers living in poverty, people that deperately need health care or civilians in war zones? Nobody gives a damn about what has become the new normal, but we're outraged that some guy had assistants in their 20s and basically ran a prostitution ring on his island.
3) a subset of the same people that probably visited the island have decided to silence the guy because he probably knew too much. The same people that had no problem having sex with underage, sexually exploited girls, decided to abuse their power once more. And we're outraged that a bunch of MIT professors took donations to pursuit their research.
Honestly at this point I would just let law enforcement do their thing and would focus on preventing/exposing situations such of this vs being revisionists about what should have been done.
[+] [-] _y6bf|6 years ago|reply
Kosslyn was also responsible for creating a position for Jeffrey Epstein at Harvard in the psychology department, according to a recent report published by Harvard's president Lawrence Bacow.
Given Epstein's alleged connection to CIA, one wonders what role it played in helping land this disgraceful $20 million program in in this defense contractor's lap?
[+] [-] thrwn_frthr_awy|6 years ago|reply
This isn't true, right? MIT knew about those engagements from as far back as 2013. This is the first sentence in the first answer to the first question and it just isn't correct. What _actually_ happened in September is a bunch of fucking terrible press for MIT. This whole thing is just so sad and at the end of all this is a bunch of human beings who were treated so poorly by some, and in some ways almost worse, treated indifferently by so many others.
[+] [-] gumby|6 years ago|reply
The amount of money he donated is infinitesimal by MIT's standards. They must have been convinced there was tons more to come.
[+] [-] perennate|6 years ago|reply
> In September, in response to revelations about engagements between MIT and Jeffrey Epstein, President Reif and the Executive Committee of the MIT Corporation asked MIT's general counsel to retain a law firm to design and conduct a review of the facts surrounding those engagements.
It is the case that Goodwin Procter's fact-finding investigation began in September. And the report details interactions in 2012 and 2013, including who was aware of what at the time. You can read the report here: http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf
[+] [-] ezekg|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _r4su|6 years ago|reply
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401412/postol-vs-the-pent...
If the Department of Defense had not punted on the investigation, then provost Rafael Reif and his supervisor president Susan Hockfield would be serving time in a federal penitentiary with former dean of MIT Sloan School of Management Gabriel Bitran
https://money.cnn.com/2014/08/12/investing/mit-professor-sca...
instead of sending thank-you notes to one of the most depraved child molesters of the 20th century.
Shame on Reif and Hockfield!
[+] [-] freestylerr|6 years ago|reply
- Profs Lloyd and Oxman, still in service
- Joscha Bach, who is the VP of research at the AI foundation (https://aifoundation.com/about/), and declined to comment. I don’t know whether someone with such track record should be educating on the future of AI?
[+] [-] trentnix|6 years ago|reply
That's 10,000 documents and emails per person interviewed. How is that even possible?
[+] [-] irjustin|6 years ago|reply
59 people are interesting to look at. 610k documents are related to the investigation probably by search/graph.
Realistically, not all 610k are read manually.
[+] [-] zachberger|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apetresc|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avalys|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gumby|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eesmith|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] baybal2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeyouse|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|6 years ago|reply
> When Epstein’s donations to MIT were revealed, MIT’s general counsel retained Goodwin Procter, a law firm that has worked with the Institute in the past and that has extensive experience conducting internal investigations at academic institutions. That background allowed the firm to get up to speed quickly as it began its review. Soon thereafter, the Executive Committee engaged the law firm Paul Weiss, which also has extensive experience leading internal investigations and advising boards of directors but no prior relationship with MIT. From a governance perspective, the Executive Committee felt Paul Weiss’s independence from the Institute was valuable.
[+] [-] stefan_|6 years ago|reply
The report concludes that President L. Rafael Reif was not aware that the Institute was accepting donations from a convicted sex offender and accused pedophile
Following one of the two $50,000 donations, staff prepared a standard gift-acknowledgment letter to Epstein, and President Reif signed it on Aug. 16, 2012
[+] [-] shadowgovt|6 years ago|reply
http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/
[+] [-] jacquesm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _ebyg|6 years ago|reply
During the Vietnam War, Dean Epps was placed under citizen's arrest by the students of Harvard University (as he famously yelled back at them: "Unhand me, you mother-fuckers!") for that organization's complicity in what the UN has now ruled a war crime:
https://www.salon.com/2011/11/11/occupy_harvard_gets_the_old...
Got to wish protesters today the best of luck getting anywhere near that close to Rafael Reif, with the police detail that he needs to hide behind in order to protect his filthier-than-dirt, self-rationalizing ass from those who might attempt to hold him publicly accountable.
[+] [-] pledess|6 years ago|reply
Is anyone interpreting this as "At MIT, it's reasonable to be prejudiced against young women who claim to have a job in the philanthropy field. Anyone actually qualified for such a job would have a different age or a different gender."? If I'm a professor elsewhere and visit MIT to talk about my research, can my female graduate student (who did most of the work) safely visit at the same time, or will she run into the same prejudice? Does the answer depend on her physical appearance?
[+] [-] pvg|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ty___ler|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morelisp|6 years ago|reply
If you interpret it as you describe instead, I also desperately hope you are not a professor and don't visit MIT.