#163 – Toby Ord on the perils of maximising the good that you do

#163 – Toby Ord on the perils of maximising the good that you do

Effective altruism is associated with the slogan "do the most good." On one level, this has to be unobjectionable: What could be bad about helping people more and more?

But in today's interview, Toby Ord — moral philosopher at the University of Oxford and one of the founding figures of effective altruism — lays out three reasons to be cautious about the idea of maximising the good that you do. He suggests that rather than “doing the most good that we can,” perhaps we should be happy with a more modest and manageable goal: “doing most of the good that we can.”

Links to learn more, summary and full transcript.

Toby was inspired to revisit these ideas by the possibility that Sam Bankman-Fried, who stands accused of committing severe fraud as CEO of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, was motivated to break the law by a desire to give away as much money as possible to worthy causes.

Toby's top reason not to fully maximise is the following: if the goal you're aiming at is subtly wrong or incomplete, then going all the way towards maximising it will usually cause you to start doing some very harmful things.

This result can be shown mathematically, but can also be made intuitive, and may explain why we feel instinctively wary of going “all-in” on any idea, or goal, or way of living — even something as benign as helping other people as much as possible.

Toby gives the example of someone pursuing a career as a professional swimmer. Initially, as our swimmer takes their training and performance more seriously, they adjust their diet, hire a better trainer, and pay more attention to their technique. While swimming is the main focus of their life, they feel fit and healthy and also enjoy other aspects of their life as well — family, friends, and personal projects.

But if they decide to increase their commitment further and really go all-in on their swimming career, holding back nothing back, then this picture can radically change. Their effort was already substantial, so how can they shave those final few seconds off their racing time? The only remaining options are those which were so costly they were loath to consider them before.

To eke out those final gains — and go from 80% effort to 100% — our swimmer must sacrifice other hobbies, deprioritise their relationships, neglect their career, ignore food preferences, accept a higher risk of injury, and maybe even consider using steroids.

Now, if maximising one's speed at swimming really were the only goal they ought to be pursuing, there'd be no problem with this. But if it's the wrong goal, or only one of many things they should be aiming for, then the outcome is disastrous. In going from 80% to 100% effort, their swimming speed was only increased by a tiny amount, while everything else they were accomplishing dropped off a cliff.

The bottom line is simple: a dash of moderation makes you much more robust to uncertainty and error.

As Toby notes, this is similar to the observation that a sufficiently capable superintelligent AI, given any one goal, would ruin the world if it maximised it to the exclusion of everything else. And it follows a similar pattern to performance falling off a cliff when a statistical model is 'overfit' to its data.

In the full interview, Toby also explains the “moral trade” argument against pursuing narrow goals at the expense of everything else, and how consequentialism changes if you judge not just outcomes or acts, but everything according to its impacts on the world.

Toby and Rob also discuss:

  • The rise and fall of FTX and some of its impacts
  • What Toby hoped effective altruism would and wouldn't become when he helped to get it off the ground
  • What utilitarianism has going for it, and what's wrong with it in Toby's view
  • How to mathematically model the importance of personal integrity
  • Which AI labs Toby thinks have been acting more responsibly than others
  • How having a young child affects Toby’s feelings about AI risk
  • Whether infinities present a fundamental problem for any theory of ethics that aspire to be fully impartial
  • How Toby ended up being the source of the highest quality images of the Earth from space

Get this episode by subscribing to our podcast on the world’s most pressing problems and how to solve them: type ‘80,000 Hours’ into your podcasting app. Or read the transcript.

Producer and editor: Keiran Harris
Audio Engineering Lead: Ben Cordell
Technical editing: Simon Monsour
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

Episoder(317)

Why 'Aligned AI' Would Still Kill Democracy | David Duvenaud, ex-Anthropic team lead

Why 'Aligned AI' Would Still Kill Democracy | David Duvenaud, ex-Anthropic team lead

Democracy might be a brief historical blip. That’s the unsettling thesis of a recent paper, which argues AI that can do all the work a human can do inevitably leads to the “gradual disempowerment” of ...

27 Jan 2h 31min

#145 Classic episode – Christopher Brown on why slavery abolition wasn't inevitable

#145 Classic episode – Christopher Brown on why slavery abolition wasn't inevitable

In many ways, humanity seems to have become more humane and inclusive over time. While there’s still a lot of progress to be made, campaigns to give people of different genders, races, sexualities, et...

20 Jan 2h 56min

#233 – James Smith on how to prevent a mirror life catastrophe

#233 – James Smith on how to prevent a mirror life catastrophe

When James Smith first heard about mirror bacteria, he was sceptical. But within two weeks, he’d dropped everything to work on it full time, considering it the worst biothreat that he’d seen described...

13 Jan 2h 9min

#144 Classic episode – Athena Aktipis on why cancer is a fundamental universal phenomena

#144 Classic episode – Athena Aktipis on why cancer is a fundamental universal phenomena

What’s the opposite of cancer? If you answered “cure,” “antidote,” or “antivenom” — you’ve obviously been reading the antonym section at www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/cancer.But today’s guest Athe...

9 Jan 3h 30min

#142 Classic episode – John McWhorter on why the optimal number of languages might be one, and other provocative claims about language

#142 Classic episode – John McWhorter on why the optimal number of languages might be one, and other provocative claims about language

John McWhorter is a linguistics professor at Columbia University specialising in research on creole languages. He's also a content-producing machine, never afraid to give his frank opinion on anything...

6 Jan 1h 35min

2025 Highlight-o-thon: Oops! All Bests

2025 Highlight-o-thon: Oops! All Bests

It’s that magical time of year once again — highlightapalooza! Stick around for one top bit from each episode we recorded this year, including:Kyle Fish explaining how Anthropic’s AI Claude descends i...

29 Des 20251h 40min

#232 – Andreas Mogensen on what we owe 'philosophical Vulcans' and unconscious beings

#232 – Andreas Mogensen on what we owe 'philosophical Vulcans' and unconscious beings

Most debates about the moral status of AI systems circle the same question: is there something that it feels like to be them? But what if that’s the wrong question to ask? Andreas Mogensen — a senior ...

19 Des 20252h 37min

#231 – Paul Scharre on how AI-controlled robots will and won't change war

#231 – Paul Scharre on how AI-controlled robots will and won't change war

In 1983, Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet lieutenant colonel, sat in a bunker watching a red screen flash “MISSILE LAUNCH.” Protocol demanded he report it to superiors, which would very likely trigger a ret...

17 Des 20252h 45min

Populært innen Fakta

fastlegen
dine-penger-pengeradet
relasjonspodden-med-dora-thorhallsdottir-kjersti-idem
treningspodden
foreldreradet
jakt-og-fiskepodden
dopet
merry-quizmas
podme-bio-3
rss-strid-de-norske-borgerkrigene
sinnsyn
rss-kull
sovnlos
gravid-uke-for-uke
rss-var-forste-kaffe
hverdagspsyken
fryktlos
rss-kunsten-a-leve
tomprat-med-gunnar-tjomlid
dypdykk