Live data from Hacker News

I'm sorry, you're not going to die from an AI-engineered supervirus

blog.genesmindsmachines.com

101–110 of 124 posts

Re: I'm sorry, you're not going to die from an AI-engineered supervirus

#101
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you need to be a physicist to realize an asteroid is going to kill you ?

Arguably yes. I would wager no one killed by an asteroid in the history of people killed by asteroids realized what was happening before they died.

Nor being an astronomer makes you able to predict every asteroids’ trajectory.

Yet anyone in tech with a Claude sub has decided that AI super-intelligence is impossible and it’s stupid to even worry about it.

Re: I'm sorry, you're not going to die from an AI-engineered supervirus

#102
I dont 100% agree.

I agree an AI isnt going to create one. but the number of raving loons out there that think 5G chips are in vaccines are going to go absolutely stark raving mad the next time there is a pandemic.

then they'll be super susceptible to AI generated political adverts from the next fuckwit political hack trying to get into power.

looking at how the world is panning out atm moment... I expect AI to have a massive influence on the sort of idiots that will get voted into power and make decisions that will get a vast number of us killed. by all sorts of means... war, famine, unregulated corporate poisoning...

AI is going to get us killed, because we'll use it to kill ourselves.

Re: I'm sorry, you're not going to die from an AI-engineered supervirus

#103

> When people believe that AI could figure this out on its own, without first running extensive and expensive basic science experiments, they have left the realm of science and have entered what can only be described as religion. I strongly agree with this. Too many people have the Arthur C Clarke quote infecting their brains. So much of science is contingent on the physical world and cannot be determined from first…

Especially when it comes to biological things. Just look at Novartis this week - three failed clinical trials of promising drugs ( https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/novartis-faces-... ) These are some of the brightest minds on the planet, spending oodles of money on things they think they understand. And they didn't work.

It's much easier to create a poison than a medicine. The things that would harm biological life vastly outnumber things that restore health. So just because Novartis didn't succeed at creating an incredibly precise and specific medication does not mean all the AI in the world can't make a crude bio-agent.

Re: I'm sorry, you're not going to die from an AI-engineered supervirus

#104
post #6

Just because the author can't think of a way to cause mass death with an engineered virus, doesn't mean an AI won't be able to think of one. (There are several biological threats the author hasn't considered. I'll just leave it at that.)

I know what you’re thinking. A modified HIV virus that also makes everyone hot and horny.

A surge in rape cases and just curiosity into this new heightened-sex fad will lead to discovery pretty quickly.

Re: I'm sorry, you're not going to die from an AI-engineered supervirus

#105
post #7

That sounds like a good video game to spin up in Astra. Missile command was pretty cool. We didn’t destroy mankind with that one either.

Or you could just play the original Pandemic https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/360724 I think that's one detail that this analysis glosses over is that you design the virus to mutate and develop lethality. So initially, it's just like, oh, another common cold, but then once it's infected a large number of people, then it mutates and starts being lethal.

By definition mutation is a random phenomenon, so there's no telling what could happen. But the most likely outcome is the virus loses all efficacy, just as we have a lot of mutations happening within us but they usually amount to nothing (otherwise we would've had a few generations of "X-Men" already).

Re: I'm sorry, you're not going to die from an AI-engineered supervirus

#106
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Viruses probably too hard but I think small scale bioterrorism is much easier and doesn't require fancy enzymes. I think this is actually the best argument for regulation of current models. It's even happened pre-AI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack

Well we're talking about new types of capabilities here, Sarin is a chemical which can be manufactured with a basic understanding of chemistry and searching with google.com. AI will not allow bad actors to do anything they couldn't have done already with google's 10 blue links. Again the same logic applies though, it takes significant effort and money to create sarin, it requires a lot of rigor. That is the limiting…

Luckily banning open source models isn't actually practical, unless all ISPs are tasked with monitoring for huge downloads, and even then Bittorrent or similar can render such monitors useless.

Re: I'm sorry, you're not going to die from an AI-engineered supervirus

#107

I'm far from anything resembling an expert in biological weapons, but this seems to me puzzlingly overconfident in the opposite direction. > PhD students in 2026 using state-of-the-art AI software are spending months or years trying to design simple peptide binders that inhibit some enzyme or pull down some protein This confuses me, as state-of-the-art AI software is moving quite quickly. Any software that is current…

Think of it this way: if it wasn't generally crazy difficult to create even somewhat effective bioweapons (due to the reasons given in the article), there would've been non-trivial use of said weapons in terrorism, war, assassination attempts, etc over time. But we're still "stuck" with using primarily bombs, guns and - to far less extent - poisons.

Re: I'm sorry, you're not going to die from an AI-engineered supervirus

#108
"Well you see, a thief will never be able to open this lock, because it needs a key. And to build the key you first need to invent steel and build all of the complex machinery that can process metals. Which is completely unfeasible for a common thief to accomplish".

Re: I'm sorry, you're not going to die from an AI-engineered supervirus

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially when it comes to biological things. Just look at Novartis this week - three failed clinical trials of promising drugs ( https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/novartis-faces-... ) These are some of the brightest minds on the planet, spending oodles of money on things they think they understand. And they didn't work.

It's much easier to create a poison than a medicine. The things that would harm biological life vastly outnumber things that restore health. So just because Novartis didn't succeed at creating an incredibly precise and specific medication does not mean all the AI in the world can't make a crude bio-agent.

And yet we aren't extinct, whether by someone's design or accident. Heck we don't have significant deaths occurring over time due to biological poisons. Most deaths at still overwhelmingly via conventional weapons.

Re: I'm sorry, you're not going to die from an AI-engineered supervirus

#110

Now here’s a real risk involving measles that I sometimes worry about. What if the measles virus experienced a set of immune escape mutations where suddenly existing vaccines no longer work? If this happened the consequences would be horrifying. We’d have an immediate, world-wide measles epidemic long before we could develop and roll out a new vaccine. What’s the likelihood this will happen? Informed estimates are th…

Even with the genome available, a lot of humans will have to be experimented on to ensure the efficacy of the "supervirus". Just as we still need a lot of experimentation to determine the efficacy of new treatments.
Post reply on HN