Bostrom mentioned that we should prefer to work on projects that are robustly benefitial given a wide range of assumptions, rather than merely benefitial in expectation. But this sounds to me like ambiguity aversion, which is usually undesirable. On the other hand, paying attention to robustness as well as expected value could make sense if we have biases that lead us to overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms of our interventions, which would lead us to overrate non-robust interventions. This seems plausible, but Bostrom did not make that case.