I see a very clear link, very capable AI models are clearly able to find and exploit cyber vulnerabilities at a speed and scale not possible before. In the right hands, that's clearly a weapon
I don't know how much of an edge hacking skills really give in war these days. A lot of America's adversaries seem to have learned tactics to deal with getting hacked. For example, Russia has these drones that use fiber optic cable so there is no way to jam or hack them.
>If the biggest danger of LLMs is that they can hack traditional systems
This is doing a lot of lifting. If the biggest danger of LLMs is they could uplift bioweapon development, the situation is different. If the biggest danger of LLMs is they reach capabilities allowing for recursive self improvement, the situation is very different still.
We've had LLMs for 5+ years, as well as Alphafold for 7+ years now. No novel bioweapon has been made with the technology that we're aware of. It's a farsical claim, there's no 21st century Aum Shinrikyo abusing the technology, after years of proliferation.
> they reach capabilities allowing for recursive self improvement
Again, you are predicating your entire argument on a hypothetical emergent behavior that we do not have any evidence for. I'm not worried about this whatsoever.
I think it would be entirely reasonable to ban death stars in private hands, the same way I think it's entirely reasonable to ban uranium enrichment in private hands. My point is that it's a question of fact about how risky an AI model can be. I think it's clear that current models are not enriched uranium or death star level, but I don't think there's anything ruling it out in the near future!
And what are those ingredients for biology, which can be constrained as effectively as uranium enrichment? I'd argue there isn't anything which can easily be restricted or monitored.
