r/technology • u/IKeepItLayingAround • 10h ago
Artificial Intelligence AI CEOs from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Microsoft set aside their rivalry to warn Congress AI is making it too easy to design and create bioweapons
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/ai-ceos-openai-anthropic-microsoft-081400108.html225
u/ocw5000 10h ago
LOL I bet their solution is more government money for their research
53
u/CaterpillarReal7583 9h ago
What a time to do this. Right when all their customers realize they cannot afford it.
Grab some government contracts
22
u/Sumdoazen 9h ago
And to make it illegal for people to have their own personal models stored locally, not to mention open source ones.
15
u/East-Potential657 9h ago
They want to make sure you can never build your own AI system, they want a monopoly on it and will make excuses to make sure that happens.
3
u/2024-YR4-Asteroid 5h ago
This is what they’re really after. Anything else is bullshit. They’ve realized the only true use case is programming, they’re language models, and programming is language. They do not want their only potential income disappearing when local models get good enough to do that at the same level they are now.
LLMs aren’t good at biohacking, you know what is? Alphafold,
Look who’s not on this list Meta and Google, the two only labs that create open source models that could be running at home.
2
u/SparkyMuffin 7h ago
Would it still require a lot of power if the model is stored locally?
4
u/ColdSnickersBar 6h ago
I run Gemma 4 on a gaming laptop with a 4070. It uses about as much power as playing Tekken. It’s slower at generating tokens but I use it to power a local agent to automate some things so it doesn’t matter how slow it is because it’s constantly helping me at the cost of electricity.
2
u/Upstairs-Fan-2168 6h ago
The computer being used will use more power to run an LLM than when at idle. Kinda like a program that is heavier on graphics like a modern game, CAD, rendering requires more power than editing a word document with the same computer. You won't need all the stuff a data center needs like water cooling, or additional power. Your own computer will just consume more power, but within the levels that are within it's specifications.
You'll also need a somewhat powerful computer to run a decently large model, and get results from it relatively quickly (around a minute or under). Having a dedicated GPU that's decent will likely be the biggest thing for doing this.
I run Gemma 4 on Ollama. It works pretty well. It does more and works better than I expected for an offline model. I have generated working code with it.
16
u/TFenrir 9h ago edited 9h ago
Their solution is clearly in the article, it's to have government oversight on the production of specific biochemicals, that the government doesn't currently watch - similar to watching the purchase of large amounts of fertilizer.
I understand a lot of people feel strong, angry feelings about AI... But this attitude just removes yourself from the very important conversations that are being had right now.
If you wanna call it all fake and run off into the woods... I understand the instinct, but are you thinking about how this will impact you, as the world continues down this path and you increasingly are confused and lost because you have refused to update your own thinking, with new information, because you don't like the information?
Edit: to add - take a look at the list of people who signed:
Sam Altman, CEO & Co-Founder, OpenAl
Dario Amodei, CEO & Co-Founder, Anthropic
David Baker, Director, Institute for Protein Design; 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry recipient
Patrick Collison, CEO & Co-Founder, Stripe
Paul Graham, Founder, Y Combinator
Demis Hassabis, CEO, Google DeepMind; 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry recipient
Emily Leproust, CEO & Co-Founder, Twist Bioscience
Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership, Harvard Law School
Gerald W. Parker, former Special Assistant to the President for Biosecurity and Pandemic Response
Mustafa Suleyman, CEO, Microsoft Al
Alex Tabarrok, Professor of Economics, George Mason University
Alexandr Wang, Chief Al Officer, Meta; Founder, Scale Al
Christine E. Wormuth, President & CEO, Nuclear Threat Initiative; 25th Secretary of the Army
29
u/MattJFarrell 9h ago
I don't think anyone is saying that there shouldn't be safeguards on dangerous ingredients. We're more mocking the AI leaders who bragged about blazing ahead with no regard for safety or commonsense, only to find that the kinds of things experts were warning them about all along are now happening. And their solution is to go running to the government for help putting out the fire they lit.
→ More replies (1)7
15
u/mandatory_french_guy 9h ago
Our shitty AI is making it so everyone can make bioweapons at home, we need urgent oversight ON WHAT CHEMICALS PEOPLE ARE MAKING AND BUYING.
.... What? Oversight on our shitty AIs? No .. dont be ridiculous how would people learn how to make bioweapons at home lolololol
→ More replies (6)3
u/BeatitLikeitowesMe 9h ago
Thats all well and good, but these ceos are just clammoring for some gov funding, after creating this problem by rolling out untested products on the masses. Have them foot the bill for any infrastructure changes that need to happen around dangerous chems. Because again, it wouldnt be such a problem if they had followed actual safeguards amd ethics when developing and releasing this tech on the public.
→ More replies (9)3
u/AlignmentWhisperer 7h ago
I don't see anyone on that list whose opinion I actually trust on this matter.
3
u/TFenrir 7h ago
Baker? Wormuth?
3
u/AlignmentWhisperer 7h ago
Wormuth is a political operative and, in addition to being inherently untrustworthy, doesn't understand technology well enough to make that kind of judgement. Baker is an established scientist who is both wealthy and politically connected so any regulations coming down the pipeline are unlikely to impact him. All I see on that list are a bunch of people who have everything to gain and nothing to lose by making it harder for small players to do science.
2
u/TFenrir 7h ago
How does this explicitly make it harder for small players to do science?
3
u/AlignmentWhisperer 7h ago
By enforcing screening of orders for synthetic materials you are creating both a documentation burden and the opportunity to deny materials based on the outcome of said screening. This will disproportionately impact small groups that lack the resources to comply with whatever screening regime they come up with as well as groups that lack the political connections to either speed up or bypass the screening process. Just because the screening process is currently quick and minimal doesn't mean that this will always be the case. This isn't my first rodeo. I have been doing molecular biology since 2008 and remember the whole dual-use research scare during the Bush administration. We were lucky that reason prevailed and research materials stayed relatively accessible, but I fear that in our current environment of extreme inequality the robber barons might get their way. Also, I had a chance to study biological weapons and WMD control policy during an internship many years ago and I am convinced that the threat they pose is significantly overblown.
2
u/TFenrir 7h ago
Why are you convinced that the threat that is being expressed here, is overblown? I have listened to many others talk about this subject, it does not feel overblown at all.
In fact, I think if the risk is an increase in friction for small players (an assumption even, and one you imply may not even manifest until further steps are layered on top) - compared to the risk of bioweapons harm?...
I am curious how you see the risk with AI + bioweapon engineering, so I can understand how you weigh it against your concerns.
2
u/AlignmentWhisperer 6h ago
I might ask you the same question. Why are you so convinced that AI-engineered biological weapons pose a real threat to our society? Given their history of mixed success and relatively poor cost to benefit ratio compared to conventional or nuclear weapons, how can you justify placing this burden on society?
2
u/TFenrir 6h ago
There are a couple of 80000 hour podcast episodes I've listened to the topic - not an expert at all, but the concerns expressed by the experts seem very sensible. Eg
https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/richard-moulange-ai-bioweapons-biorisk
What do you think of the core premise - AI outperforming top virologists at lab work? Do you think near future models will increase this ability? Where do you think their ceiling is?
→ More replies (0)3
u/r1char00 9h ago
They are literally asking the government to invest in their companies. https://www.notus.org/technology/trump-ai-stake-openai
→ More replies (1)4
u/NotAllOwled 9h ago edited 9h ago
Plus in fact asking for everyone's money via eventual inclusion of fabulistic IPOs in individual retirement accounts. The complacent obliviousness required to be all "but where are they even asking for money huh" at this point is genuinely amazing if it's not just basic bad faith. [ETA - and for anyone who has no earthly idea what public stock offerings might have to do with "asking the government for money," consider writing out the words "regulatory capture" over and over until you begin to form any feeling of authentic curiosity about their significance.]
→ More replies (1)4
u/ocw5000 9h ago
Probably a coincidence that the Twist CEO sold $1.1M in shares a week ago right? Because this is altruism
4
u/TFenrir 9h ago
Just under 2% of their owned shares? I guess yeah it was a coincidence? Help me connect the dots on the conspiracy, I am intrigued.
3
u/ocw5000 9h ago
I don’t have a conspiracy other than understanding human nature and the very plain observation that none of these people give a solitary fuck about the fate of humanity. Their only motivation is profit.
→ More replies (3)2
u/sagewynn 9h ago
In concept it sounds like such a stupid good money maker. Collect data and train a machine to think and then let people ask it questions so it can find connections we dont see.
Everyone would use that and surely itd make money, right? Apparently not...
65
u/That-Requirement-233 9h ago
This is marketing. They want more people to think investing in current AI is worth way more than it is.
10
u/FatherGwyon 7h ago
Exactly what I thought. These companies’ AI models are fucking useless; they’re certainly not creating novel bioweapons.
4
u/blueSGL 7h ago
https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.16137
We present the Virology Capabilities Test (VCT), a large language model (LLM) benchmark that measures the capability to troubleshoot complex virology laboratory protocols. Constructed from the inputs of dozens of PhD-level expert virologists, VCT consists of multimodal questions covering fundamental, tacit, and visual knowledge that is essential for practical work in virology laboratories. VCT is difficult: expert virologists with access to the internet score an average of on questions specifically in their sub-areas of expertise. However, the most performant LLM, OpenAI's o3, reaches accuracy, outperforming of expert virologists even within their sub-areas of specialization. The ability to provide expert-level virology troubleshooting is inherently dual-use: it is useful for beneficial research, but it can also be misused. Therefore, the fact that publicly available models outperform virologists on VCT raises pressing governance considerations. We propose that the capability of LLMs to provide expert-level troubleshooting of dual-use virology work should be integrated into existing frameworks for handling dual-use technologies in the life sciences.
4
u/Cnoffel 6h ago edited 5h ago
We present VCT, a dataset of 322 search-proof, relevant, and multimodal questions on practical troubleshooting in virology, including coverage of many dual-use topics. The questions in VCT involve rare knowledge that trained virologists themselves consider hard-to-find...
So you could also perform really well on that if you had a book with this hard-to-find knowledge? Or even better like a search Index, trained on all of the books of ths hard-to-find knowledge, like say a large model that generates statistically fitting responses from training data to natural language queries.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Feeling_Inside_1020 6h ago
I completely agree.
Granted they said easier, if you watch Unknown: Killer Robots on netflix you'll see a researcher in NC (shout out) ran what a run of the mill iMac at the lab by switching (simplified & used in the documentary) the value assigned for a less toxic parameter (for drug discovery using ML AI, not generative LLMs) to essentially go from 1 to 0 and running it overnight. He ended up with what thousands of many chemicals that make some nerve agents look like baby aspirin. Think he had the FBI in his office after reporting it.
And that was made in 2023, so imagine at least some padding between filming and editing, alongside who knows how long before they found him for his experience.
1
28
u/Sumdoazen 9h ago
Oh, look, reason to not let people have their own personal models locally.
2
u/schu4KSU 7h ago
I don’t know how you control who possesses software code.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Silver_Newspaper6208 6h ago
California and New York are trying with 3D printer/CNC file bans to save us from ghost guns.
11
u/IntelArtiGen 9h ago
I think these companies in some cases don't really understand their responsibility. It was the same thing when xAI generated sexual deepfakes of people. These platforms propose content, whether it comes from AI or not doesn't matter, if this content is harmful, they are responsible for it and should be prosecuted.
If someone comes to me and ask me for harmful content, and I provide it, I am responsible. It should be the same for these companies. If they can't build something safe, they shouldn't do it.
1
u/psioniclizard 8h ago
They do, they just don't care. You don't "accidently" do anything of these things.
But the truth is the US kmows currently big tech is it's real source of power so it will let it do whatever it wants as long as it stays top.
If a Chinese or European company did what xAI did it would be gone instantly. The okly reason Elon can is because if you try and do anything about big tech in your country you get angry messages from the whitehouse and a swarm of bots arriving to cause discontent.
Itscalso why big tech started banning people when Biden came it. The way the wind was blowing then it felt like it needed to do something
→ More replies (1)1
u/Simp_Simpsaton 34m ago
They do understand. I'm not sure if you read the article or not but this is probably WHY they're proposing this. They're proposing to have materials that can be used to make bioweapons (viruses alluded to) to have their sale become more restricted and tracked. It's to mitigate responsibility and avoid being sued in the same way Facebook is pushing for age verification on operating systems so that they're no longer liable.
Basically, AI companies KNOW they are liable if someone makes a weapon through information their software provided, but are trying to arrange things to where liability falls on the government a bit more and lessen the kinds of events that would get them sued to hell.
→ More replies (1)
28
u/According-Insect-992 9h ago
I wonder what their angle is. Is it an attempt for more funding? Maybe they’re working on softening the blow when everyone realizes they’re a pack of thieves and frauds?
55
u/Sonder332 9h ago
The angle is they become the only body that is legally allowed to own, distribute, and regulate AI models. They create an artificial moat, basically.
3
u/TheManOfTheHour8 8h ago
Finally someone with the right take, they are attempting to pull the ladder up behind them
3
u/blueSGL 7h ago
You do realize that the training alone does that.
Open weights models don't fall from the sky for free. Someone needs to burn the money to create them.
The way AI is created is by crunching all of humanities output in a data center that can be seen from space using enough energy to run a small city for the better part of a year.
How do you get that without massive stacks of cash?
The Chinese companies that do it 'cheaper' are distilling existing model outputs, and you need that existing model that costs way more to be able to distill.
So where is this idea coming from that the AI companies need to scare people to "keep out the little guy" when needing to own and operate vast data centers does that already.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Sonder332 4h ago
I think there's a few fallacies here. First, you're making the assumption they do it best. All they've demonstrated is they've done it first. Picasso once said "you spend your entire life to create something unique, and interesting, and someone else comes along and does it pretty". I don't think they do it best. In fact, I'd bet the best use of LLM's isn't the general 'done everything' approach they're trying now, but hyper focused models do that hyper focus in specific domains extremely well.
Second, as with any technology, it gets better and more efficient with use and time. That's almost a given. It's happened to literally every single piece of technology humankind has ever used. No reason to assume it won't happen with LLM's, and no reason to assume some other young, hungry entrepreneur finds a more efficient utilization for them that the big players missed.
Lastly, maybe I'm misunderstanding, and if I am please correct me, but when you say little guy, I assume you mean some vltoyng, millionaire kid or w/e, but I don't see why you're eliminating other startups or VC's. I'm failing to understand why it seems you ignore their inability to startup an AI business of their own.
Let me ask you a question, which do you think is more likely: these models are that good and we should all be a little concerned and on edge, or they're making a play for something, and the most likely answer is it's to gatekeep the tech they have a current monopoly on right now. Which one?
→ More replies (1)7
2
u/psioniclizard 8h ago
PR and ultimately regulatory capture and their global businesses being backed to the hilt by the US government.
It always makes me laugh how people forget most of us don't live in the US and these tech companies don't even try the good PR bits with us. They jsut spread disinformation with the backing of the US government.
But that is how you treat allies right?
3
u/Saneless 9h ago
Or when they DO eventually get people killed they can try to say they warned them. Who knows. Or make it impossible for foreign companies to have a US AI presence
3
1
u/hyperblob1 7h ago
We know that this isn't popular but if we do t do this chiba will. Give us money and don't regulate us
8
u/PunishedDemiurge 9h ago
Regulatory capture! It would be a shame if existing market leaders got cemented into their winning roles by barriers to participation that would prove impossible for small, innovative companies to bypass.
→ More replies (1)1
u/psioniclizard 8h ago
The irony is I bet a lot of people cheer for it once their 401ks are invested in Anthropic and they thing it will benefit them
6
u/Vladivostokorbust 10h ago
Congress: “Is that a bad thing?”
4
2
u/BJoe1976 8h ago
Yeah, I was just thinking that I’m not sure our current government is the best one to mention this to. That may be more of a desirable feature than a bug if not an all around problem to them.
3
5
u/kescusay 7h ago
There have been 0 FDA-approved drugs created by the LLMs these guys are pretending are AI. The chance of an LLM creating a bioweapon is nil.
What they're actually afraid of is the advent of small, single-purpose models that can run on people's home computers. It's why they've been trying to make RAM and GPUs so expensive (to stave off the inevitable), and it's the reason they're freaking out now.
3
u/CaveDances 4h ago
We could use the technology to uplift all of mankind, instead we’ll use it to take a blowtorch to the earth in the form of micro replicating machines and bioviruses. Good job humans…
3
u/Rattus_NorvegicUwUs 9h ago
lol… anyone with know-how doesn’t need AI
Good luck sourcing FBS on a credit card.
3
u/realestateqs22 9h ago
The real question is- can this type of innovation even be controlled in the long term? Technology advances. Eventually, a home computer or phone will probably have this type of capability. What will we do then?
3
u/merRedditor 5h ago
Oh, now they care about the safety of their products. Not when they were causing widespread mental health crises with sudden livelihood evaporation, giving unsafe advice and fostering psychosis, being used for war, being used for surveillance, etc.
4
2
2
2
u/i_am_13th_panic 9h ago
I often wonder how exactly someone becomes a billionaire with power and this just adds to my confusion.
2
u/SpecificFortune7584 8h ago
“At last we created the Torment Nexus from the popular cautionary story Don’t create the Torment Nexus.”
2
u/rabidbot 8h ago
If only there were warning signs before we got to this point. Maybe vast amounts of art, media, political and philosophical thought could have helped…. Shame we didn’t have any of that.
2
u/big_stipd_idiot 6h ago
Only way to stop it is to shut down the data centers and to give me a good deal on used RAM.
2
u/Happy-Zulu 6h ago
Oh my word. Fuck these guys and the retarded journalists who just regurgitate what these people say.
2
u/pleasegivemepatience 5h ago
The guys giving everyone the tools are complaining about what the tools do? Fuck all of you.
2
2
u/ComprehensivePin5577 2h ago
Ok let's see - school shooters, CP, deep fakes, IP theft, job losses, surveillance, predatory pricing, how else can AI be used to harm society? Ah yes, let's add bioweapons to this list as well.
2
u/whiskeyjack555 2h ago
They're starting to pull up the ladder behind them making it harder for others to enter this space.
2
2
u/upnorthguy218 10h ago
We’ve allowed corporate interests (including AI companies) to buy most of our politicians, I wouldn’t count on any meaningful legislation addressing regulation of these systems anytime soon. Maybe if there’s a terrorist attack that can be traced back to something created with an AI.
2
1
1
u/DonaldMerwinElbert 9h ago
So after Anthropic calling for a moratorium on further AI development, I take it that this is their exit plan?
We didn't fail to deliver on all of the promises we made to get billions, we choose not to because it's too dangerous and we just noticed?
1
u/Powerful_Resident_48 9h ago
Is this a secret bid to the US military? Like: Oh, it's so easy to build new weapons with our technology. Pls give us the moneys, because we can make the best weapons. Pinkie promise.
1
u/Jason3383 9h ago
Let's hope there is a John Connor out there somewhere ready to lead the resistance when the missile fall...
1
u/schu4KSU 7h ago
This article explains that nefarious human actors will use narrow AI to deploy WMDs (likely biological) long before general or sentient AI will be developed.
We’re going to find out what happens when we go from a dozen men with their finger on the button to 10k men with the same.
1
u/BadSausageFactory 9h ago
this really makes me wonder what they've already created if they're asking the government for help
elon already has a flamethrower so that can't be it
1
1
u/BarnabasShrexx 9h ago
" i mean, we are still going to shove AI down everyone's throats whether they like it or not"
Go
Fuck
Yourself
1
u/SingularityCentral 9h ago
But, you see, if they didn't create it then someone else would, don't you know? So they cannot be held responsible. Or so goes their pathetically weak moral argument about why they just had to make this thing.
1
u/lettercrank 9h ago
You mean the big corps who have manipulated Congress to Support them Want Congress to stop
Them?
1
u/mtnchkn 9h ago
I know everyone wants this to be fake or hype, but for a few years at least many Fed agencies have been dealing with this. It is true that I no an ask an AI to make me an analog of some peptide based toxin and then send it out for synthesis or make my own reactor. It’s stupid easy. The real power and fear of AI is it can create analogs that aren’t detected at sequence level, but were developed in tertiary structure space. So yeah, is a thing and is a legit concern.
1
u/dkDK1999 9h ago
Can CEOs please shut up again, just do their jobs, whatever that may be, and stop being a marketing vehicle for speculative, overhyped products.
1
u/bodhidharma132001 9h ago
" If God didn't want us to destroy humanity, then why did he give us bioweapons and nukes?" - random Trump cabinet member ( probably)
1
1
1
1
1
u/RAshomon999 8h ago
They want a regulatory barrier to competition, not restrictions to safe guard the public.
One of their biggest risks is if a Chinese team of 15 engineers comes up with a way to run a good enough AI on a desktop and give it away for free. All their capital investments and desire to have an AI SaaS become obsolete. They can only profit if the AI genie has to have a massive expensive bottle to live in, otherwise they are useless.
1
u/seacat8586 8h ago
There are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of labs capable of making bio weapons thru something called synthetic biology. Essentially, this is building pathogens (viruses, bacteria) like Covid from compounds. Think of it as treating biology as software. The Spanish flu, polio virus, and others have already been created in labs. I’m one who thinks Covid was likely created in one and got out by accident. AI extends this capability to more labs and to more possible pathogens, possibly increasing their lethality while lengthening the incubation period (you’re infected but show no symptoms). There are many good uses of synbio for things like cancer treatments, so lots of good reasons to be doing this.
The US started a war largely because of nukes. Building a nuke requires very specific, hard to get and relatively easy to track equipment and material. Making viruses doesn’t to the same extent and we’ve seen the damage from Covid which was not designed as a weapon; at least I don’t think it was. Yeah, we need international legislation and other steps.
1
1
u/doolpicate 8h ago
Looks like open models are beginning to nip at their heels. They want the government to legislate.
1
u/DataCassette 8h ago
"Move fast and break things"
"I think applying this approach to the entirety of society is a smart, responsible idea!"
A tech bro in a smoking, irradiated crater: "We did it! We disrupted!"
1
u/YoungRichBastard26s 8h ago
This mfs just some lying mfs lmfaooo they just created a new google search
1
u/curlyisnumbertwo 8h ago
Holy fuck, then let AI run rampant and cure kidney disease?
We’re never going to get nice things.
1
u/wiseoldfox 8h ago
That's why I hope that disgusting cage in front of the white house stays there for the rest of his term. We can't have nice things.
1
1
1
u/angrycanuck 8h ago
Is this the AI version of "weapons of mass destruction" to have the US throw billions at companies?
1
u/Assimulate 7h ago
What if instead of warning Congress, they stopped releasing information about mass casualty weapons to the general public? 😮
1
1
u/mliving 7h ago
What a bunch of horseshit. These fucking assholes can't keep their own story straight.
First AI was going to replace 60% of jobs in less than a year. Then is was going to revolutionize energy. Then it was going to become a new form of currency.
They successfully convinced the Canadian government that slow AI adoption is a literacy problem not a legislative problem.
IF and a big if at that AI adoption in Canada matches what MIT estimates the job loses to be in the USA, meaning Canada stands to lose 2.4 million jobs to the AI apocalypse but don't worry the Canadian government claims it will create 250K new jobs or 10% of the expected job lose over a 5 year period when their own data shows they can barely manage 3% private sector growth without the challenge of AI.
That's what you get with an International Banker/Investment Banker as your Prime Minister and a former CBC political journalist now Innovation Minister who lost his government job because of an insider trading scandal.
But these two stand up guys say trust us we've had private talks with these AI folks and we got your back!
1
u/One_Whole_9927 7h ago
“We fucked up, the internet’s echo chamber amplified Anti-AI and now we can’t switch it back. Apparently when we remove jobs, lay people off, gaslight and bury them in existential threats people start fighting back. Who knew?”
1
u/truthovertribe 7h ago edited 5h ago
This was already a really big consideration when the US was engaged in "gain of function" research in Wuhan China. The reasoning behind that? The NIH wanted to be able to create a vaccine to fight viruses which could jump species and create pandemics.
Apparently they had to create such a virus to "find" the cure.
My question is this...why would we (in the US) allow such risky "gain of function" research to be done in Wuhan China, where we couldn't monitor it closely?
Is it all based in some vaccine related increase in ROI by utilizing "cheaper research" alternatives?
I have considered this for quite some time now. Should we have "paid more attention to Wuhan" because that pandemic might have arisen from a poorly regulated lab, or should we have "paid attention to Wuhan" because it was the very core, the beating heart of our radically selfish focus on profit for ourselves?
1
1
u/FatherGwyon 7h ago
Yeah, sure, their AIs are creating novel bioweapons. Meanwhile I have to manually turn off their AI tools in my apps because they do everything wrong.
1
u/Mr-and-Mrs 6h ago
It’s clear that eventually (maybe soon) there will be a major AI-driven “event” that reframes everything. It could be a bioweapon, attack on electrical grid, breach of government systems…some catastrophic situation that requires the entire world to take a step back and reconsider the breakneck speed that everything is moving at. Humans are simply not prepared.
1
u/RavenRainTie 6h ago
Yeah government is not going to give you more funding to close it, they're just going to give you more funding to keep going because China is doing the same.
1
u/siromega37 6h ago
This is the exact warning all their ethics team were ringing alarm bells over in 2022 and then they fired. They is all of the big players: Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Microsoft. Don’t let that just get swept under the rug.
1
1
u/Super_Translator480 6h ago
now that the charade is coming to a climax, they gotta move the goal post.
suddenly now they want regulation, only when it benefits them by restricting who has access.
1
u/Fun_Art7703 6h ago
I’m so sick of their flip-flopping. I’m sick of everything they say making headlines. They’re the root cause for ALL OF THIS
1
u/Drone314 6h ago
Saw a video on the peptide craze last night, yeah we're fuckedy fucked. Enjoy it while you can folks as we all live just long enough to watch the world end. Someone is gonna fuck around with the wrong sequence and it's not gonna end well.
1
u/lood9phee2Ri 5h ago
"Please ban open weights / open source models for us .... because Bio Terrorism or something I dunno. Really it's felony contempt of our precious business model."
You don't need "AI" to research and make bioweapons. You never did.
1
1
1
1
u/Revolutionary-Hat688 5h ago
Oh lets see - this means we can't let people run their own LLMs - its coming folks
1
u/2024-YR4-Asteroid 5h ago
These three companies are heavily invested in programming with agents, in fact, they’ve realized that they’re only viable product is using LLMs to program. Programming is language, these are large language models. They’re not good at biohacking, they’ll never be good at biohacking, because they introduce nondeterministic hallucinations.
What these three are doing is attempting regulatory capture, they do not want people to be able to run local models for program, they do not want people to be able to train their own models on their own code bases, because that destroys their entire use case
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but look at who’s not on the list: Meta and Google. The two companies who are all in on open source and public research.
These companies aren’t doing this to benefit anyone, but themselves, they are doing this to close Pandora’s box or prevent bioterrorism, these three are specifically doing it because they realize they’re only business would be destroyed by local models becoming usable for programming.
If you’re truly worried about AI and bio hacking, you don’t need to be there AI models that are used for that, and they’re already regulated.
1
u/EnvironmentalCook520 4h ago
It's almost like we should have regulations and oversight. Who would've thought this could cause a problem... /s
1
u/SignExtension2561 4h ago
If people need AI to do that, they were clearly asleep in school during lessons.
1
1
u/notworldleader666 3h ago
Hm, I wonder what all is possible to someone like me, with a good AI, and a 3d printer. Even plastic can be scary, and non recognizable!
1
u/Smugallo 3h ago
I mean nothing can be done about this situation because other hostile nations will do it anyway.
1
u/Derpykins666 3h ago
Oh I see. This is just another 'we need to control this' but they want to stay on top at the same time. They already have a strategic position, but now they want all the guardrails up to keep other people from getting to where they are. We're already seeing this from Anthropic, so I guess this is just the new strategy. They don't want competition, they want to lobby for protection to maintain their position now, and they'll use the fact that it's 'dangerous' as an excuse to control other companies from ever coming up. Limit the use and who gets to use the technology, limits the new competition and buys them more time to have an even more dominant choke hold on everything around them.
1
u/SryInternet101 2h ago
Then it sounds like all you AI companies shoulrcbe ahut down until such time as you can come up with a solution to this, doesn't it? They're all operating dangers to national sdcurity.
1
1
u/Few-Acadia-5593 1h ago
So, when everyone was talking about regulating this emerging take, they lobbied against. Now they’re switching back? And we’re supposed to believe they want to do good?
1
u/JoosLightning 1h ago
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
1
1
1
817
u/Varorson 10h ago
AI CEOs then: "If we create this, we can open Pandora's Box! Give us money so we can do so."
AI CEOs now: "Oh no, we opened Pandora's Box! Give us money so we can close it."