He says certain actions from Musk are in direct conflict with the society’s principles
Elon Musk is facing fierce criticism from prominent figures within the Royal Society, with Nobel Prize winner Geoffrey Hinton leading the charge. Hinton, often hailed as the “godfather of AI,” has long voiced concerns about the future implications of advanced technology. He has warned that AI could exacerbate the wealth gap, create a breeding ground for fascism, and even pose an existential threat to humanity within the next few decades.
Now, Hinton has turned his attention to Musk, specifically in relation to his fellowship with the Royal Society—the prestigious institution that is the world’s oldest continuously active scientific academy. Musk earned his place in 2018, thanks to his groundbreaking work in the space and electric vehicle industries. However, his recent actions have sparked significant backlash within the organization, resulting in two high-profile resignations and an open letter signed by over 3,400 members of the global scientific community demanding accountability.
As the tension grows, it’s clear that Musk’s actions are raising serious alarms among some of the world’s leading scientists, and Hinton’s outspoken criticism is just the latest in a string of challenges to the billionaire’s influence in the scientific and technological spheres.
Geoffrey Hinton didn’t mince words in his recent statement on X, suggesting, “I think Elon Musk should be expelled from the British Royal Society. Not because he peddles conspiracy theories or makes Nazi salutes, but because of the massive harm he’s inflicting on scientific institutions in the US. Now, let’s see if he really believes in free speech.”
Hinton’s criticism likely targets Musk’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been controversial for slashing funding to various scientific fields deemed “wasteful” or “inefficient.” Musk’s actions have raised serious concerns, especially among the scientific community, about the impact on vital research and innovation in the United States.
Many members of the Royal Society argue that Musk has violated the institution’s Code of Conduct. The Code calls for fellows to uphold principles such as “selflessness, integrity, objectivity, openness, honesty, and leadership,” and to ensure that their personal actions do not tarnish the Society’s reputation. Musk’s controversial behavior, including his handling of funding cuts and other actions, has sparked debate about his commitment to these principles.
Despite the uproar, Musk’s fellowship appears to remain intact after a recent meeting of the Royal Society’s fellowship, which left some members frustrated. A spokesperson for the Society clarified that any issues regarding individual fellows are handled confidentially, but Stephen Curry, who spearheaded the open letter demanding Musk’s expulsion, expressed disappointment with the outcome.
“It’s still unclear from their statement whether they stand by their code of conduct or if they ever plan to enforce it,” Curry remarked. “This situation has revealed that while the Royal Society claims to represent the scientific community, they don’t seem to be doing a great job of engaging with that community.” The controversy continues to raise questions about the Society’s commitment to its own values and the influence of high-profile members like Musk.
Elon Musk fired back at Geoffrey Hinton’s call for his expulsion from the Royal Society with a bold statement on X:
“Only craven, insecure fools care about awards and memberships. History is the actual judge, always and forever. Your comments above are carelessly ignorant, cruel, and false. That said, what specific actions require correction? I will make mistakes, but endeavor to fix them fast.”
Musk’s response suggests that he’s not overly concerned about the prestige of a Royal Society fellowship, emphasizing that history will ultimately judge his actions, not titles or accolades. As of now, Hinton has yet to reply to Musk’s retort, but Musk’s words clearly imply that his focus isn’t on the approval of scientific institutions, but rather on his own sense of progress and accountability.
