Thread

1. edot · 1791067681 · focus · HN ↗

   Absolutely based. Finally someone of stature in the industry calling this whole fear overblown. Bill Gates sounded like a nontechnical goofball in his Ezra Klein interview where he basically just screamed that the Terminator is real.

   There are lots of real worries (government use to suppress the people with minimal manpower or popular support, brainrot and fake news, unemployment due to the belief that LLMs can replace people, education collapse, etc.) we should instead be looking at. This whole rogue AI shtick is tiresome.

   1. Barrin92 · 1791070504 · focus · HN ↗

      >Bill Gates sounded like a nontechnical goofball in his Ezra Klein interview where he basically just screamed that the Terminator is real.

      I saw that episode too and he genuinely looked completely out of it, even in terms of his temperament and how he was coming at Klein for putting common questions in front of him, some people are genuinely starting to lose it.

      I also found the whole debate about cyber-security and 'rogue' software so bizarre because dangerous malware isn't a new thing, and it's often dangerous not because it's intelligent but just the opposite, because it's tiny, viral and fast. Which describes everything that kills humanity in far larger numbers than anything complex, big and intelligent

      1. jswelker · 1791071216 · focus · HN ↗

         Wasn't Bill Gates mostly just saying terrorists could use AI to build a bioweapon? That sounds legit to me.

         1. zozbot234 · 1791072179 · focus · HN ↗

            It's not "legit", it's pointless scaremongering about entirely speculative future dynamics. Current LLMs can't "build" anything novel in this broad space. What if future AIs make it a lot easier for researchers to defend against plausible bioweapons? That's also reasonably possible, and would be a reason to deploy bio-capable AIs more broadly (with meaningful safeguards of course. But these are comparatively cheap because worthwhile bio research is resource-intensive already). At the very least, it'd be nice to have an AI model that doesn't immediately refuse to answer questions about junior-high Biology class.

            1. jswelker · 1791072417 · focus · HN ↗

               So a terrorist can't use a local llm to help grow anthrax? That is not farfetched at all.

               AI democratized the knowledge needed to build bioweapons. Like how with a 3d printer anyone can build a gun with no expertise.

               1. com2kid · 1791086352 · focus · HN ↗

                  [delayed]

                  1. altmanaltman · 1791090789 · focus · HN ↗

                     Also it kind of infantalizes terrorists as if not having an LLM access or 3d printer is what stopping their attacks. Like okay I ask LLM to help me create a dirty nuclear bomb but the moment i start taking steps to do that, law enforcement will already be tracking me.

                     Most people saying LLMs can make terrorism easy have never given doing terroism a serious thought imo.

                     1. hackinthebochs · 1791108770 · focus · HN ↗

                        The raw materials to make bioweapons are easily purchased on line with no pre-emptive tracing. It's absurd to discount the expertise factor in being a bottleneck, which LLMs have evaporated.

                        1. altmanaltman · 1791116904 · focus · HN ↗

                           Sure, that's why we keep seeing so many bioweapon attacks in recent times, because AI + Amazon can end the world.

                           1. hackinthebochs · 1791121740 · focus · HN ↗

                              It's strange how quick people are willing to dismiss concerns with horrible reasoning as long as it suits their biases. Perhaps a little intellectual honesty is called for considering the stakes? There are many plausible reasons why we haven't seen AI fuel bio-terror attacks yet. None of which implies it's unlikely or implausible in principle.

                              1. tripledry · 1791123963 · focus · HN ↗

                                 But hasn't bio attacks already been possible before AI, what has changed? Maybe the barrier to entry lowered, but one could argue the availability of info has not been the bottleneck for as long as the internet has existed.

                                 The threat is ofc real, but AI won't magically "do the thing" still, it's not code that's the bottleneck AFAIK? Correct me where I'm wrong.

                                 1. hackinthebochs · 1791130084 · focus · HN ↗

                                    Synthesizing complex information from a range of technical sources enough to build bioweapons is cognitively impenetrable for the vast majority of people. The ability of AI to synthesize this information into a step-by-step recipe to follow is a step change in accessibility.

                                    There's an opportunity cost to terrorism just like with any time sink. The effort to build up knowledge enough to produce some weaponized pathogen will be compared to just doing traditional terrorism. For some low capability terror cell, its easy to see how the cost/benefit analysis has been in favor of traditional terrorism up to now. The kinds of terror acts that take years of sustained effort to execute are rare. But as the barriers to entry to bioterrorism fall away and become widely accessible we may see the cost/benefit shift.

                                    1. tripledry · 1791186212 · focus · HN ↗

                                       > Synthesizing complex information from a range of technical sources enough to build bioweapons is cognitively impenetrable for the vast majority of people. The ability of AI to synthesize this information into a step-by-step recipe to follow is a step change in accessibility.

                                       I agree with this part.

                                       > But as the barriers to entry to bioterrorism fall away and become widely accessible we may see the cost/benefit shift.

                                       But I argue that the barrier to entry is not about information, it's about needing to build, execute and maintain a lab and production facility? It's not the theoretical part that's the bottleneck.

                                       Or maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of implementing such a thing, this is not in my area of expertise.

                                       1. hackinthebochs · 1791189146 · focus · HN ↗

                                          >Or maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of implementing such a thing, this is not in my area of expertise.

                                          Not mine either. But there is a vocal contingent of experts in biotech that have been sounding the alarm for the last couple of decades at the potential for rogue groups to develop weaponized pathogens for terrorism. And this was years before LLMs. Apparently constructing a sufficiently capable lab isn't really a bottleneck due to how freely available equipment is by mail order and how unsophisticated the processes are in practice.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.