upvote
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.

reply
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.
reply
> It's absurd to discount the expertise factor in being a bottleneck, which LLMs have evaporated.

Mmm. Especially in this arena, LLM assistance is like The Anarchist's Cookbook. A quarter of the time following the instructions will seriously injure you... and if you know enough to identify which instructions are the hazardous ones, you know enough to not need the assistance.

reply
That may be true (and I hope it is). But it's not a limitation that will remain indefinitely.
reply
> But it's not a limitation that will remain indefinitely.

The Sun is going to fail in somewhere between many hundreds of millions and a few billion years. This will either turn the surface of the earth into slag, freeze it, or both. Either way, all life on the planet is doomed. This fact is not a reason to fail to switch from hydrocarbon-burning electricity generators to photovoltaic, fission, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal electricity generators. Extinction events that will happen in the extremely distant future shouldn't prevent us from doing the things that are smart to do in the medium- and long-term.

But, -to bring things to the present day- companies that are solidly on track to hit their promised growth targets don't come out and publicly say "We're working on WMDs. [0] We are incapable of safely working on these WMDs. We refuse to stop working on these WMDs. However, if you lawmakers make special laws and regulations just for us and include us in the process, we'll be quite happy to submit the stop work order to our employees!". That's a statement you only make if there's no way in hell you're going to keep your promises and you're willing to risk jail time and annihilation of your companies for a shot at being able to con Congress into giving you an ironclad excuse to fail to keep your promises.

Given enough time and focused effort, we will end up with widely-available automated librarians that are very good. We're not there yet, and -based on current events- are absolutely not going to get there in the near future.

[0] Anything with a 10% chance of destroying all humanity is a WMD.

reply
> The Sun is going to fail in somewhere between many hundreds of millions and a few billion years.

Cool, what does a process that's about 9 orders of magnitude slower than AI development have to tell us about AI risks?

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

reply
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.

reply