• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
  • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    AI reasoning gains and the case for stronger biodefense

    One post argues that recent AI capability gains are barely related to biological risk, calling for stronger biodefense regardless of AI's progress.

    DB
    1 Source, 15d ago, first seen 15d ago

    TLDR

    A post questions the timing of warnings about AI-related biological risk, arguing that rapid capability gains were foreseeable when OpenAI released o1. The author says reinforcement learning and models “thinking” before answering favor progress on tasks where iteration is cheap and correct answers are easy to verify. They argue that biological threat vectors have not changed and advocate stronger biodefense regardless of AI, noting that COVID-19 preceded ChatGPT.

    Combined views

    6.1K

    1 Source, first seen 15d ago

    Combined views

    6.1K

    1 Source, first seen 15d ago

    58 likes
    58 likes
    8 comments
    13 saves
    12 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    8 comments
    13 saves
    12 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    1 Source

    @DavidRBellamyThe AI biorisk alarmists need to explain 'why now' since it was apparent that we would reach the AI capabilities we see today over 2 years ago. When OpenAI released o1 (quoted), it was clear to many in AI (incl. myself) that the new paradigm of training models with reinforcement learning and the model 'thinking' before it answers would lead to a rapid climb on tasks where 1) task iteration is cheap and 2) correct answers are easy to verify. This is the reason I pivoted my work back then to specialize in exactly this paradigm. Yet biorisk is barely related to the trend in these particular capabilities (see my other threads). Biorisk threat vectors haven't changed. So the move is to shore up biodefense as a protective measure that societies should have irregardless of AI. Remember that the COVID-19 pandemic occurred before ChatGPT. Biorisk has existed for decades.

    1 Source

    @DavidRBellamyThe AI biorisk alarmists need to explain 'why now' since it was apparent that we would reach the AI capabilities we see today over 2 years ago. When OpenAI released o1 (quoted), it was clear to many in AI (incl. myself) that the new paradigm of training models with reinforcement learning and the model 'thinking' before it answers would lead to a rapid climb on tasks where 1) task iteration is cheap and 2) correct answers are easy to verify. This is the reason I pivoted my work back then to specialize in exactly this paradigm. Yet biorisk is barely related to the trend in these particular capabilities (see my other threads). Biorisk threat vectors haven't changed. So the move is to shore up biodefense as a protective measure that societies should have irregardless of AI. Remember that the COVID-19 pandemic occurred before ChatGPT. Biorisk has existed for decades.