Note that there is Open Phil funded research arguing that AI is not an important contributor to biorisk, and that access controls are not an effective mechanism for biorisk reduction,which was not cited (as far as I can see) in the post. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22539/. This undermines the thesis that they “got what they paid for and what they wanted: “science” that’s good enough to include in a policy paper as a footnote, simply intended to support the pre-existing goal—“Ban open source AI”—of those policy papers”.
A specific relevant excerpt (typos from there):
Further, because the limiting factor on spread testing is data collection of from the real world environment that the agent is meant to spread in, and the limiting factor on dispersal is logistic factors as in chemical agents, neither are affected by revolutionary technologies in biotechnology not [nor] artificial intelligence
Note that there is Open Phil funded research arguing that AI is not an important contributor to biorisk, and that access controls are not an effective mechanism for biorisk reduction,which was not cited (as far as I can see) in the post. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22539/. This undermines the thesis that they “got what they paid for and what they wanted: “science” that’s good enough to include in a policy paper as a footnote, simply intended to support the pre-existing goal—“Ban open source AI”—of those policy papers”.
A specific relevant excerpt (typos from there):