[ianm218]

Where does the bio risk he mentions fall in this category? It feels quite plausible in a year or two to have closed loop labs with very modest resources.

Doesn’t mean that you have to think only Anthropic should be able to make bioweapons or whatever, but it just feels like this ignores the risk

[Stitch4223]

The bio argument is a call for guardrails, thus regulatory capture.

Using a technology does not make an illegal activity illegal. It already was illegal to begin with.

And there are already guardrails in the form of ethos, law, justice departments and so on. This reality is flagrantly dismissed in their position on open-weights.

Just like cyber crime is just things like extortion etc which are already illegal: following similar reasoning all computer activity should be regulated by their vendors.

Hence the knives factory analogy, which is even more basic to point out this crooked way of reasoning.

[ianm218]

Ok but bio weapons could theoretically kill everyone… so it’s not like a knife that could maybe kill a few people.

It stands to reason you would regulate a knife differently than a nuclear bomb.

[Stitch4223]

Using bio-weapons is a war crime for over 100 years. There can still be foul play of course. That danger isn’t new.

Any day there might bring a new discovery or mutation that changes the planet forever. AI might accelerate that, which is why AI is used in the bio / medical field for decades. An LLM might solve some things as well, but is just a form of AI.

The knowledge to make huge bombs is very old and part of a normal physics education. You can even work in companies that make or maintain these (potential) bombs. I agree that it turns into geopolitics very quickly.

Regulation often happens after the fact. I don’t think the call for regulation stems from kindness in this case. It stems from fear and greed more likely. And I share your concern.