6 ms·

As a biologist whose PhD research was on the genetics of microbial pathogens, I am far more concerned than the author. I think he trots out a lot of straw-man

As a biologist whose PhD research was on the genetics of microbial pathogens, I am far more concerned than the author. I think he trots out a lot of straw-man arguments (e.g., teenager making the weapon, "super"virus, etc.). Those scenarios are purposely far-fetched so that he can ridicule them and thereby leave the impression that all the AI/bioweapon concerns are similarly far-fetched. He spends a lot of "tokens" discussing AI-generated viruses. But bioweapons can be much simpler than a virus--they can be small molecules that inactivate essential molecular targets in humans. This is something that was discussed at length when I was in grad school and it wasn't dismissed as hyperbolic hokum. So, is AI going to develop a supervirus? Probably not. But it doesn't need to. Instead, I speculate that AI can "help" in making bioweapons ... a. more potent b. less detectable c. easier to disseminate You still need humans in the lab to run the experiments, but I think it's foolish to dismiss the worries about AI in such a condescending way.

alevskaya 9d ago
"they can be small molecules that inactivate essential molecular targets in humans" - aka a poison. I mean we deal with the reality of poisons plenty fine right? This isn't x-risk stuff. I was an experimental synbio person for decades, and I did plenty of microbial pathogen work. I've also worked on frontier LLMs for the last decade. All of this stuff is gated by experimental effort, not AI!
- busyant 8d ago
  > All of this stuff is gated by experimental effort, not AI! My post said you still needed to run the experiments, but if you think AI can't help to improve bioweapons compared to humans alone, I disagree.
UncleMeat 8d ago
Are they straw men if they are specific scenarios presented by widely read commentators? A straw man is when you misrepresent somebody's position to knock it down. But if Noah Smith wrote about a scenario where 90% of the population is killed by a virus created by some teenagers with an AI... it isn't a straw man to attack that scenario.
colingauvin 8d ago
Not to discredit your opinion here, but will just point out I am also a PhD biochemist who has worked on viruses, so hopefully our credentials cancel. :)

alevskaya 9d ago

"they can be small molecules that inactivate essential molecular targets in humans" - aka a poison. I mean we deal with the reality of poisons plenty fine right? This isn't x-risk stuff. I was an experimental synbio person for decades, and I did plenty of microbial pathogen work. I've also worked on frontier LLMs for the last decade. All of this stuff is gated by experimental effort, not AI!

busyant 8d ago
> All of this stuff is gated by experimental effort, not AI! My post said you still needed to run the experiments, but if you think AI can't help to improve bioweapons compared to humans alone, I disagree.

UncleMeat 8d ago

Are they straw men if they are specific scenarios presented by widely read commentators? A straw man is when you misrepresent somebody's position to knock it down. But if Noah Smith wrote about a scenario where 90% of the population is killed by a virus created by some teenagers with an AI... it isn't a straw man to attack that scenario.

colingauvin 8d ago

Not to discredit your opinion here, but will just point out I am also a PhD biochemist who has worked on viruses, so hopefully our credentials cancel. :)