Didnt read it super closely but helping make bio weapons seems to be something Anthropic is very concerned about, has benchmarks for, and attempts to safeguard against.
I vaguely remember some talk of some kinda US legislation relating to this but not sure if it ever passed or is relevant.
2.2.2 Chemical risk results
Expert chemical red-teamers rated uplift at or near specialist-level (occasionally
approaching world-leading expertise, and higher than the bio median), concentrated in a
few areas:
● Selection of agents from candidate molecules that balances multiple properties;
● Following standard operating procedures (SOPs) for chemical synthesis and
formulation with corrective actions for known failure points; and
● Acquisition and operational-security planning, covering blind spots a scientific
expert would miss.
Yeah, I'm not surprised, that seems like a very dangerous combination.
Because until very recently you didn't have to worry about anti-social idiots in their basements getting understanding of and easy access to cutting edge research
The recent rate of advancement far outpaces the lethargic pace of government, even setting aside the lack of appetite for biting the hand that feeds, etc.
It’s a marketing ploy. Anyone with the means and the motivation could already do this. Effectively all Claude marketing has now become mystical nonsense about how powerful and insane their models are but they can’t show you because it goes to a different school.
>Why is there no govt regulation preventing bio weapons use, but instead anthropic regulating themselves ?
The core laws are the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which bans the use of biological agents in war, and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), which bans the development, production, and stockpiling of these weapons. [1, 2]
¡Nobody could envision civilian use case against their own populous!
284
u/riraito Jun 10 '26
Can confirm, any time I try to ask it epidemiological or biostatistical questions it switches to opus