I think that we are both right.

Hypothetically, if there were some famous university professor who had written at length about the possibility of, I dunno, simulated superintelligent ant hives, then I think that Bostrom might have felt compelled to include a discussion of the "superintelligent ant hive hypothesis" in his book. He's striving for completeness, at least in terms of his coverage of high-level aspects of the A.I. Risk landscape. It would also be a huge slight to the theory's originator if he left out any reference to the "superintelligent ant hive hypothesis". And finally, Bostrom probably doesn't want to place himself in the position of arbiter of which ideas get to be taken seriously, when lots of people probably think of lots of parts of A.I. Risk as loony already.

So, I don't think Bostrom was sitting in his office plotting how to make his book a weaponized credulity meme. But I also felt, from my own perspective, that the inclusion of the Hanson stuff was just a bit forced.