[somenameforme]

Speaking practically your hypothetical is a scenario that requires somebody that is proactively interested in, and theoretically capable of, making a e.g. dangerous virus, yet are unwilling/unable to do so without a chatbot. How many people might this possibly apply to? I think the number is literally zero.

I also don't entirely understand your comment, because your latter parts do not follow from your lead. You're 100% right that somebody who's not extremely capable messing with this stuff is overwhelmingly likely to just hurt themselves. And somebody relying on a chatbot to guide them in dealing with this sort of tech? Yeah, they're gonna win a Darwin Award.

---

I also think there's an entirely different, yet also compelling argument, against censorship. Local LLMs already exist and are advancing rapidly. There will come a time, probably in the relatively near future, when the state of the art big system and a decent uncensored local system will become practically indistinguishable in terms of capability. So not only will people be able to do this locally, but you lose something big in the process.

The reality is that our interactions with LLMs are 100% being actively surveilled, regardless of privacy promises of the companies involved. At the minimum, every chat is making it's way over to the NSA's Utah data center, one way or the other. Some guy trying to do something significantly malicious using an LLM is little more than a gift to the authorities, but this is only true with centralized/online uncensored services. Push people onto local models to do nefarious stuff, and law enforcement is blinding themselves.

[munksbeer]

>Speaking practically your hypothetical is a scenario that requires somebody that is proactively interested in, and theoretically capable of, making a e.g. dangerous virus, yet are unwilling/unable to do so without a chatbot. How many people might this possibly apply to? I think the number is literally zero.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but this doesn't seem correct.

I think I'd phrase it that there probably already exist, or will exist, people with the inclination to cause global mass death, but don't have the knowledge or ability to manufacture a virus to achieve this.

[somenameforme]

The important part is being theoretically capable of. Fortunately there are massive barriers to doing things like synthesizing deadly viruses, and it's not just a matter of knowledge but of skill. For instance there was a Japanese death cult [1] that at its peak included not only many graduates of top universities in Japan but tens of millions of dollars in funding. But their escapades read a lot like a satire of incompetence.

That's not to say they were harmless - they managed to kill numerous people, but they'd have killed vastly more if they just drove some trucks into crowds as is becoming a typical weapon of terrorists. And I think the main reason is because knowing how something is done, and actually doing that thing, are radically different.

For a goofy analog, think about assembling sofas or even certain desks/chairs from a kit. That can actually be fairly tricky, to the point that there's an industry built around doing it for you. But there it's literally following like a few dozen steps with a carefully manufactured set of goodies and all tools right in front of you. Imagine doing something many orders of magnitude more complex where you're improving everything, have guidance that may be simply wrong, requires not only extreme skill but also a wide variety of difficult to acquire equipment, and if you make any mistake - you stand a decent chance of killing yourself.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo

[enugu]

If it just a mundane chatbot, the discussion is moot. But, we already have AI making breakthroughs in research and approaching the abilities do science just like a scientist does. (The last two paragraphs of your comment also assume such a high capability scenario).

Imagine giving the access, to whoever wants it, to a scientist who may not have many fresh insights, but has the advantage of a huge memory containing all the scientific literature in their mind, the standard patterns of deductions, and the ability to work at a very fast pace 24/7. They could identify vulnerabilities in biological mechanisms, just like AI identifies security flaws in code today.

---

Regarding hurting themselves, I was not referring to someone who is too dumb to follow lab safety precautions, but someone who has a nihilistic mindset. State actors and militia use weapons to take over and enjoy the power they acquire - they dont want to get killed by a deadly virus(unless they engineer and selectively apply the vaccine before they release the weapon - but this is very hard to keep secret). Someone who is nihilistic wont have such reservations on using the weapon even if it destroys them eventually.

Regarding restrictions on API LLMs leading to use of local LLMs, it is the local LLMs which will be used anyway (once they have the capability). That we live in a mass surveillance envirnoment is common knowledge. The bottleneck, where restrictions can be applied, is not inference but training which requires hundreds of millions of dollars. Chinese scientists have themselves spoken about AI safety concerns and it is indeed a threat to China just like anyone else.

Also, restricting high end weapons ability does not interfere with 99.9% of LLM usage (open-weights or proprietary) - so it need not interfere with business strategy.