>Anthropic gates usage related to biology and related research. In their latest threat intelligence report they talk about how they detected and banned bad actors using the Claude line of models to do some scary stuff. Credit to them, this is a slippery slope and they seem to do a good job of detecting and banning misuse. But squint at what is happening though. The cure-all is gated for you and me, but Anthropic hires biologists, sets up wet labs and wants the discoveries for themselves. I alluded to this in my previous post.
As a biologist, this is the most annoying thing about Anthropic for me. If they really cared about improving health they would set up a trusted-access program so that biologists can use Mythos (et al) safely. Instead they're trying to monopolize biology.
They have such a trusted access program.
"Life Sciences Verification Program: The LSVP is designed so that life sciences professionals can use Claude Mythos 5.1 with safeguards designed for professional research and development activities (while all other safeguards remain in place). In partnership with the US government, we have enrolled our first participants, and we plan to expand access to this program to the broader life sciences community."
https://www.anthropic.com/claude-fable-and-mythos-5-1
These "access gates" and export controls are going to look hilariously quaint in a few years.
It reminds me of the export controls on PlayStation 2 consoles because it was deemed that 6 gigaflops was a "dangerous" amount of computer power, and it couldn't be allowed to fall into the hands of opposing militaries: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-apr-17-fi-20482...
Now the phone in my pocket does 2,500 gigaflops on battery power, and nobody seems interested in banning its export because of that.
That’s the recurring theme with these companies. They are not there to serve anybody else but only themselves. They let you use their infrastructure so they can collect all the knowledge and data, and then they take it from you to reap all the benefits and profits.
Not denigrating need for such a thing, (and appreciating @hobom 's mention of LSVP I was unfamiliar with) but noting with historical precedent this style of protection reflex does not come without lapses (ahem allegedly): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#Bruce_Edw...
I was a biophysicist and experimental biologist for decades, I designed viral vectors and cell therapies, etc. What protects us here isn't our ignorance vs an "ASI".
It's the fact that the complexity of molecular physics scales exponentially in particle number. No amount of thinking is going to punch through that. You've got to do experiments. The slow loop through reality is not optional, and in the case of "superviruses" would require a lot of iterative experimental development in humans.
(And please knock off the bio infohazard act - I routinely get asked about scenarios that AIxBio safety people cook up and they always involve some howler misunderstanding of basic facts in biology or medicine. Just talk about an idea if you have it.)
>(And please knock off the bio infohazard act - I routinely get asked about scenarios that AIxBio safety people cook up and they always involve some howler misunderstanding of basic facts in biology or medicine. Just talk about an idea if you have it.)
We're already doing those experiments. Tailor made mRNA vaccines targeted to one's own specific cancer mutations can be bought right now. The techniques are getting more sophisticated and more targeted every year. Our ability to predict what happens at these levels is improving by leaps and bounds too thanks to AI like AlphaFold. Anyone can be reasonably confident that no AI or teen can do this now or in the next few years, but are you really so confident what might be possible in 10 years?
I worked in immuno-oncology: cancer vaccines work in melanoma where many things work because of the neoantigen abundance, they've generally been very mixed in efficacy. And even BionTech's BNT111 failed in melanoma! We have hope for these approaches but the reality of this stuff is way more nuanced than you think it is.
Alphafold can't reliably predict thermal energy landscapes or make functional predictions - and how could it? It wasn't trained on anything that could capture structure - function relationships.
Again, most people just have no idea how hard - fundamentally hard - molecular physics is to predict, and how necessary experiments are for any development of biological systems.
> We have hope for these approaches but the reality of this stuff is way more nuanced than you think it is.
Sure, everything has more nuance. The point is this stuff is available now; this isn't some future sci-fi, it's only going to get better, it's not the only research on gene targeting, and AI is starting to help with this research. By the time AGI is actually here, consider the breadth of knowledge and capabilities that will be at its disposal.
> Alphafold can't reliably predict thermal energy landscapes or make functional predictions - and how could it? It wasn't trained on anything that could capture structure - function relationships.
If your point is that the only reason an AI like AlphaFold can't make functional predictions is that we haven't trained an AI to do that, then unless you're arguing we can't or won't ever do that, I'm not sure how that's supposed to be an objection to the argument that AI will be able to make use of this information without doing all of the experiments people seem to think would be necessary.
Like I said, we're already going to be doing these experiments because it's useful to us, and we will train AIs to make these predictions, again, because it's useful to us. Stop imagining what an AGI has access to now, and start thinking what it will have access to with the inevitable march of progress that we're already on.
Edit: and of course, this doesn't even take into account the fact that an AI could acquire resources to pay people to do this research. The internet provides ample opportunities like this now.
I am not sure what you mean here. There exist plenty high-concern biological threats that dont need any AI help. Human oncovirus design is low on my concern list (immunity is diverse), and in any case it does not need AI—rather labspace. Disgruntled high schoolers or undergrad chemists can do way more damage from readily available materials without AI and without research delay. As can nature (or amateur biologists without AI) by mixing bats with their animal of choice and waiting a while. If/when any scary global events like covid happen again, I sure hope we have true superintelligence to help us navigate it quickly.
The author can't think of what a superintelligence will do, because they are not a superintelligence. But that is not really what people are concerned about, so I think the objections here are quite meaningful.
If there is a fully general superintelligence - in the current state of alignment - we will all die for some reason. It doesn't really matter what the reason is.
Right. A superintelligence will kill us in one or more of thousands of possible ways for thousands of possible reasons, perhaps none of which we may understand. Short of a superintelligence - the difficulties of viral bioweapon engineering the author points out are quite meaningful.
That paper is kinda infamous! I last saw it mentioned only a few weeks ago, in https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18966. Lots of folks will go "Oh that's the old Amodei and Clark paper" when the first few rows of pixels of that gif sail into view.
reply