/ai

The debate over civilization-threatening bioweapons

A researcher urges colleagues not to confidently dismiss the possibility, arguing that AI can worsen biological risk but that the risk "hardly depends on AI."

AK

AM

YA

3 Sources, ,

TLDR

A researcher says some scientists consider civilization-threatening bioweapons a fantasy, but argues that not seeing a viable path—or evidence that others see one—does not establish impossibility, especially if cautious researchers stay silent. They say they began work in 2018 on screening systems intended to control access to biological sequences without revealing whether those sequences were dangerous. Their broader argument: AI can worsen biological risk, but biological risk "hardly depends on AI."

Today's Rank

—

Not ranked yet

Combined views

1.4K

3 Sources, first seen 1d ago

3 Sources

@AdamMarblestoneRT @kesvelt: Some scientists argue civilization-threatening bioweapons are a fantasy. I wish they were correct, and that I've wasted years…@ProfArbelTo my friends who think AI bioweapons aren't a real threat because there are "choke-points" like secure biolabs, please read this: "36 of 38 companies shipped pieces of the 1918 influenza genome. That was collectively enough to generate the virus using reverse genetics several times over – and they were ordered by a student using a pseudonym falsely claiming to work at an office address. No one asked whether we had permission to work with 1918 influenza (a select agent), or why we needed genes from it"@BlackHCRT @ProfArbel: To my friends who think AI bioweapons aren't a real threat because there are "choke-points" like secure biolabs, please read…

Today's Rank

—

Not ranked yet

Combined views

1.4K

3 Sources, first seen 1d ago

13 likes

1d ago

first seen 1d ago

13 likes

3 saves

20 reposts

Sentiment

Positive——Negative

Summary

Not enough discussion yet.

No sentiment analysis available yet.

1d ago

first seen 1d ago

TLDR

A researcher says some scientists consider civilization-threatening bioweapons a fantasy, but argues that not seeing a viable path—or evidence that others see one—does not establish impossibility, especially if cautious researchers stay silent. They say they began work in 2018 on screening systems intended to control access to biological sequences without revealing whether those sequences were dangerous. Their broader argument: AI can worsen biological risk, but biological risk "hardly depends on AI."

3 saves

20 reposts

Sentiment

Positive——Negative

Summary

Not enough discussion yet.

No sentiment analysis available yet.

Sentiment

Positive——Negative

Summary

Not enough discussion yet.

No sentiment analysis available yet.

Sentiment

Positive——Negative

Summary

Not enough discussion yet.

No sentiment analysis available yet.

3 Sources

@AdamMarblestoneRT @kesvelt: Some scientists argue civilization-threatening bioweapons are a fantasy. I wish they were correct, and that I've wasted years…@ProfArbelTo my friends who think AI bioweapons aren't a real threat because there are "choke-points" like secure biolabs, please read this: "36 of 38 companies shipped pieces of the 1918 influenza genome. That was collectively enough to generate the virus using reverse genetics several times over – and they were ordered by a student using a pseudonym falsely claiming to work at an office address. No one asked whether we had permission to work with 1918 influenza (a select agent), or why we needed genes from it"@BlackHCRT @ProfArbel: To my friends who think AI bioweapons aren't a real threat because there are "choke-points" like secure biolabs, please read…

Today's Rank

—

Not ranked yet

Today's Rank

—

Not ranked yet