all 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 22 points 5 months ago (1 child)

You see, the problem is our product is just so good. It’s too damn good, oh god it scares me how good it is.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    I wonder from what angle they are coming at this. Is it the reasonable "a team of experts with sufficient experimental capacity can now prototype potent biological weapons much faster, even though they still have to test them" or is it the wackadoo "you can ask an LLM how to creat a bioweapon and it will list you all the steps".

    The first one, yeah, sure but bad actors (including US) will always try to use any technology for such leverage. If second one, then it is a weak attempt at securing more funding.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    This is a shitty attempt to make congress think it needs to throw more money at AI to keep up with China.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    What? It's not out here reasoning about chemistry. If the chatbot can tell you how to manufacture anthrax, it's because some Geocities page has the same information for similar searches.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    For LLMs: For the most part, yes. However, an agentic loop, a sufficient knowledge base about chemicals & reactions, and some simulation tools to help judge, can come up with a top 5 promising solutions/approaches, which can then be tested in a lab. Faking what scientists might try themselves, just faster.

    Then there are the non-LLM specialty AI models, which are increasingly being developed. Probably developed and trained by a small team of domain experts with the help of a coding agent, and seeded with domain-specific datasets.

    The times ARE changing, but I would not expect Little Johnny to be whipping up bioweapons with chatbots anytime soon.

  • source
  • parent