#188 – Matt Clancy on whether science is good

#188 – Matt Clancy on whether science is good

"Suppose we make these grants, we do some of those experiments I talk about. We discover, for example — I’m just making this up — but we give people superforecasting tests when they’re doing peer review, and we find that you can identify people who are super good at picking science. And then we have this much better targeted science, and we’re making progress at a 10% faster rate than we normally would have. Over time, that aggregates up, and maybe after 10 years, we’re a year ahead of where we would have been if we hadn’t done this kind of stuff.

"Now, suppose in 10 years we’re going to discover a cheap new genetic engineering technology that anyone can use in the world if they order the right parts off of Amazon. That could be great, but could also allow bad actors to genetically engineer pandemics and basically try to do terrible things with this technology. And if we’ve brought that forward, and that happens at year nine instead of year 10 because of some of these interventions we did, now we start to think that if that’s really bad, if these people using this technology causes huge problems for humanity, it begins to sort of wash out the benefits of getting the science a little bit faster." —Matt Clancy

In today’s episode, host Luisa Rodriguez speaks to Matt Clancy — who oversees Open Philanthropy’s Innovation Policy programme — about his recent work modelling the risks and benefits of the increasing speed of scientific progress.

Links to learn more, highlights, and full transcript.

They cover:

  • Whether scientific progress is actually net positive for humanity.
  • Scenarios where accelerating science could lead to existential risks, such as advanced biotechnology being used by bad actors.
  • Why Matt thinks metascience research and targeted funding could improve the scientific process and better incentivise outcomes that are good for humanity.
  • Whether Matt trusts domain experts or superforecasters more when estimating how the future will turn out.
  • Why Matt is sceptical that AGI could really cause explosive economic growth.
  • And much more.

Chapters:

  • Is scientific progress net positive for humanity? (00:03:00)
  • The time of biological perils (00:17:50)
  • Modelling the benefits of science (00:25:48)
  • Income and health gains from scientific progress (00:32:49)
  • Discount rates (00:42:14)
  • How big are the returns to science? (00:51:08)
  • Forecasting global catastrophic biological risks from scientific progress (01:05:20)
  • What’s the value of scientific progress, given the risks? (01:15:09)
  • Factoring in extinction risk (01:21:56)
  • How science could reduce extinction risk (01:30:18)
  • Are we already too late to delay the time of perils? (01:42:38)
  • Domain experts vs superforecasters (01:46:03)
  • What Open Philanthropy’s Innovation Policy programme settled on (01:53:47)
  • Explosive economic growth (02:06:28)
  • Matt’s favourite thought experiment (02:34:57)

Producer and editor: Keiran Harris
Audio engineering lead: Ben Cordell
Technical editing: Simon Monsour, Milo McGuire, and Dominic Armstrong
Additional content editing: Katy Moore and Luisa Rodriguez
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
dopet
merry-quizmas
jakt-og-fiskepodden
sovnlos
rss-strid-de-norske-borgerkrigene
sinnsyn
podme-bio-3
rss-kull
hverdagspsyken
gravid-uke-for-uke
tomprat-med-gunnar-tjomlid
rss-kunsten-a-leve
fryktlos
level-up-med-anniken-binz
rss-var-forste-kaffe