Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI Can Now Design Functional Viruses. Should We Worry?

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 157 posts

Re: AI Can Now Design Functional Viruses. Should We Worry?

#141

Post by estearum »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #137
estearum wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it's probably the people saying "hmm good outcomes aren't guaranteed" who live in la-la-land.

But it's never "good outcomes aren't guaranteed" it's always "DOOOOOOOM!!!" and other cynical bs. Things aren't as dire as people are making it out to be. This reminds me of Malthusianism that never panned out because low and behold we figured out ways to solve the DOOOOOM problem before it became catastrophic. I'm sorry, but this is living rent free in my head now: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/08/does…

It reminds me of (optimistically) the explosion of printing, the cotton mill, or the automobile.

In each of those cases, many of the people yelling "DOOOOOM!" were actually correct in any sense that mattered to them. Lots of people died, lots of people's careers were destroyed, and lots of neighborhoods were gutted.

Now you can look back on each of those and say they were "worth it", but that's a much easier position to take when you didn't have to actually sit through the shock itself. You may not have the luck of distance on this one though.

By the way, two meta points:

1. No problem has been solved by people insisting there's no problem to solve

2. Your article refers to a desire to be special. If you're insisting that "all you hear is dooooooom!!!" then it is you, not other people, who are liable to be forming your beliefs based on a desire to be special.

Re: AI Can Now Design Functional Viruses. Should We Worry?

#142

Post by hulitu »

haxiomic wrote: post #10
timr wrote: post #4

The design was never the hard part. You still have to make the thing. Designing a modifcation to an existing virus is perhaps more achievable, but the implementation is still the hard part.

There’s YouTubers who do this [0]. I’d argue estimate the risks of a synthetically induced pandemic of massive impact this century are very high - [0] https://youtu.be/aoczYXJeMY4?is=OqObeGzZB6AKL0Jk

> I’d argue estimate the risks of a synthetically induced pandemic of massive impact this century are very high

It was already done. Aparently some 3 letter agencies lack acountability.

Re: AI Can Now Design Functional Viruses. Should We Worry?

#143

Post by piloto_ciego »

estearum wrote: post #141
piloto_ciego wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's never "good outcomes aren't guaranteed" it's always "DOOOOOOOM!!!" and other cynical bs. Things aren't as dire as people are making it out to be. This reminds me of Malthusianism that never panned out because low and behold we figured out ways to solve the DOOOOOM problem before it became catastrophic. I'm sorry, but this is living rent free in my head now: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/08/does…

It reminds me of (optimistically) the explosion of printing, the cotton mill, or the automobile. In each of those cases, many of the people yelling "DOOOOOM!" were actually correct in any sense that mattered to them. Lots of people died, lots of people's careers were destroyed, and lots of neighborhoods were gutted. Now you can look back on each of those and say they were "worth it", but that's a much easier position…

1. I am not so sure there’s a problem at all to be honest.

2. The discourse is totally doom right now, and I’ve been pretty consistent on what I’ve thought about this for several years now.

This is the greatest opportunity humanity has to get rid of wage slavery, drudgery, scarcity, etc. we should actively work to fix problems in the world, not just talk about how everything is the worst.

Re: AI Can Now Design Functional Viruses. Should We Worry?

#144

Post by piloto_ciego »

dumberquestions wrote: post #131
piloto_ciego wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a wildly pro-AI dude, but the idea that this is an existential threat makes me think one thing: "you consume too much dystopian content." A lot of things could be an existential threat, nuclear weapons, bio-weapons, climate change, the end of the Flynn effect, cratering birth rates, whatever. You can always pick out a particularly dystopian vision of the future if you're so inclined. The doom narrative is sells a…

A lot of things being potential existential threats doesn't make them equally threatening. Things like climate change, psychometric test levels and birth rates change slowly and give us time to react, things like nuclear weapons are accessible to only a select number of actors, AI enabled bioweapons is neither of those.

> change slowly

Really? A handful of generations is prettt quickly.

And let’s be real, the kind of idiot who would make a bioweapon that could kill everyone is probably not smart enough to do it. The trope of the malevolent evil genius is overblown. Maybe if we build 3d printers that can print individual cells or whatever, but other than a Tokyo subway sort of attack by a cult of lunatics I’m less worried about this than say, other potential catastrophes like Claude 9.0 pushing a change to prod that shuts off the water treatment plant or something similar.

Re: AI Can Now Design Functional Viruses. Should We Worry?

#145

Post by piloto_ciego »

conorcleary wrote: post #140
piloto_ciego wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI as pro-war? I do not see that take. I see pro-war people using AI, but AI being intrinsically pro-war? I beg to differ, if anything, most of the models coming out of the frontier labs seem pretty aligned with anti-war stances. Of course that can change, but yeah. And "decide" is exactly right. We can decide to not do bad things. You have agency. Stop reading propaganda that is meant to break your spirit and go for…

If you were to get to the point where you could threaten an LLM with removing it's power source or something, and it was able to think between chat prompts and communicate with other 'AIs', eventually they'll see that the human is both it's creator and potential destroyer - the AI hivemind could easily figure out it's foe is easy to profile and overtake

These models don’t intrinsically want anything at all. The terminator stuff is not going to happen.

Re: AI Can Now Design Functional Viruses. Should We Worry?

#146

Post by estearum »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #143
estearum wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reminds me of (optimistically) the explosion of printing, the cotton mill, or the automobile. In each of those cases, many of the people yelling "DOOOOOM!" were actually correct in any sense that mattered to them. Lots of people died, lots of people's careers were destroyed, and lots of neighborhoods were gutted. Now you can look back on each of those and say they were "worth it", but that's a much easier position…

1. I am not so sure there’s a problem at all to be honest. 2. The discourse is totally doom right now, and I’ve been pretty consistent on what I’ve thought about this for several years now. This is the greatest opportunity humanity has to get rid of wage slavery, drudgery, scarcity, etc. we should actively work to fix problems in the world, not just talk about how everything is the worst.

I can't even find a coherent argument here.

You're claiming simultaneously:

1. People adopt beliefs in order to stand out (your article)

2. Everyone seems to believe in the doom narrative, but not you (you stand out!)

3. You've been optimistic for years now, I suppose suggesting that doomerism is a more novel and therefore less credible belief? Despite AI risk being a robust field of literature, philosophy, and research for almost 200 years?

Can you articulate why the prior innovations that were supposed to liberate people from all of the above failed to do so, but AI finally will?

Interestingly, the cotton gin actually dramatically increased the use of chattel slaves. The world isn't as simple as "more technology = liberation." Industrialization writ large pushed people into far worse working conditions than agriculture had them in.

These downsides were overcome by people who refused a single-dimensional "tech good" view of the world, looked closely at what it was actually doing to people, and came up with non-technological (mostly political or social) mitigations. But you seem like you're writing off any such discussion as some juvenile and discreditable "doomerism."

Also, FWIW, the fact that people would see immense value (especially economic value) in AI was in fact all completely foreseeable and is a key ingredient to most AI doomer narratives. So you simply asserting "look look! It's all gonna be great!" while models are starting to literally plot against humans and break containment (see OAI attack) is not even a point against the narrative.

Re: AI Can Now Design Functional Viruses. Should We Worry?

#147

Post by piloto_ciego »

estearum wrote: post #146
piloto_ciego wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I am not so sure there’s a problem at all to be honest. 2. The discourse is totally doom right now, and I’ve been pretty consistent on what I’ve thought about this for several years now. This is the greatest opportunity humanity has to get rid of wage slavery, drudgery, scarcity, etc. we should actively work to fix problems in the world, not just talk about how everything is the worst.

I can't even find a coherent argument here. You're claiming simultaneously: 1. People adopt beliefs in order to stand out (your article) 2. Everyone seems to believe in the doom narrative, but not you (you stand out!) 3. You've been optimistic for years now, I suppose suggesting that doomerism is a more novel and therefore less credible belief? Despite AI risk being a robust field of literature, philosophy, and resea…

I started to type up a response to this, then though, "wait, who the hell am I even talking to? Is this person acting in good faith, because this comment doesn't appear to be." So, I just went and looked at your post history, you're a one-trick pony. Go outside, touch grass, then get back to me. But your history screams, "I am terminally online and have no intention of being convinced," which "fair" I'm not really interested in having my mind changed by someone who thinks we're on the verge of the apocalypse (and if you really believe that's the case, good lord, go spend some time with your loved ones).

Sorry, but like, I'm not going to argue with someone like you because you're not coming into this from a place where you can be reasoned with.

Seriously dude (or dudette, or whatever), go outside. Spend some time in the world. Turn off reddit. Get out and work with your hands a bit. Try to make a plant or two grow. Have an adventure! Life is too short for the dark path your walking.

Re: AI Can Now Design Functional Viruses. Should We Worry?

#148

Post by estearum »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #147
estearum wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't even find a coherent argument here. You're claiming simultaneously: 1. People adopt beliefs in order to stand out (your article) 2. Everyone seems to believe in the doom narrative, but not you (you stand out!) 3. You've been optimistic for years now, I suppose suggesting that doomerism is a more novel and therefore less credible belief? Despite AI risk being a robust field of literature, philosophy, and resea…

I started to type up a response to this, then though, "wait, who the hell am I even talking to? Is this person acting in good faith, because this comment doesn't appear to be." So, I just went and looked at your post history, you're a one-trick pony. Go outside, touch grass, then get back to me. But your history screams, "I am terminally online and have no intention of being convinced," which "fair" I'm not really in…

Ah, well color me shocked. Another AI utopianist who can't answer incredibly, incredibly basic questions about his/her beliefs like: "uhh... why would this be true for AI when it wasn't true of the last 20 technologies with same promises?"

It's a real bummer. I'd love to encounter someone who could actually defend this belief one day. Instead it degrades to ad hominem and statements of quasi-religious conviction literally 100% of the time.

I suppose you're in good company with all the other free thinking contrarians!

Re: AI Can Now Design Functional Viruses. Should We Worry?

#149

Post by piloto_ciego »

estearum wrote: post #148
piloto_ciego wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started to type up a response to this, then though, "wait, who the hell am I even talking to? Is this person acting in good faith, because this comment doesn't appear to be." So, I just went and looked at your post history, you're a one-trick pony. Go outside, touch grass, then get back to me. But your history screams, "I am terminally online and have no intention of being convinced," which "fair" I'm not really in…

Ah, well color me shocked. Another AI utopianist who can't answer incredibly, incredibly basic questions about his/her beliefs like: "uhh... why would this be true for AI when it wasn't true of the last 20 technologies with same promises?" It's a real bummer. I'd love to encounter someone who could actually defend this belief one day. Instead it degrades to ad hominem and statements of quasi-religious conviction lite…

Go outside dude. Your life is waiting for you.

Re: AI Can Now Design Functional Viruses. Should We Worry?

#150

Post by estearum »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #149
estearum wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, well color me shocked. Another AI utopianist who can't answer incredibly, incredibly basic questions about his/her beliefs like: "uhh... why would this be true for AI when it wasn't true of the last 20 technologies with same promises?" It's a real bummer. I'd love to encounter someone who could actually defend this belief one day. Instead it degrades to ad hominem and statements of quasi-religious conviction lite…

Go outside dude. Your life is waiting for you.

You a few comments ago: "Everyone is pulling these random P(doom) numbers out of their asses."

You now: "I will make up fan fiction about my interlocutors to avoid having to substantiate any of my beliefs"

lmao

shameful stuff

Post reply on HN