The circumstances under which they were able to get the synthesized DNA this way would not work in the general case [1]
>Multiple IGSC member companies detected the ordered sequence and determined the order to be legitimate as defined in the 2023 guidance. Specifically, the orders were placed on behalf of SecureBio, an organization known to IGSC member companies given the role played by SecureBio in the SecureDNA project, an effort to build a DNA synthesis screening system. In addition, the name on the orders was an individual who has co-published multiple times with Esvelt, an individual well known to IGSC companies to work in viral evolution and who is known to have access to laboratory facilities sufficient to work safely with the ordered material.
>In short, the system worked as designed: a legitimate individual ordered DNA sequence that, by itself, posed no risk of misuse, for delivery to a company associated with legitimate scientific contributions directly relevant to the sequence that was ordered.
"So you think in 3 years AI is going to solve longstanding math problems because it was used to write some coherent sentences?" — people with the same amount of foresight in 2023
Are you saying at anything that can solve longstanding math problems necessarily has the means, motive, and capability to kill 8 billion people in just 3 years?
No dude, it was an analogy. Sorry to pick on you, you're just another ignorant uninformed take in this thread, but come on. This technology is progressing at an insane rate, the shit it's doing now is science fiction from just a year or two ago, and people just keep on moving the goal posts, it's maddening. The technology is unpredictable and that in itself has risks. You must realize that the window of possibility is widening the further into the future we go! Can you pick people with epistemology you trust and see if there's anything you can learn in this moment? Can you try to challenge your own ideas instead of retreating into comfortable certitude? There are real risks here, they are worth taking seriously, and serious people are doing so!
If more than 0.05% of the rationalist and AI safety community were Zizians this argument might be worth considering for like ten seconds before dismissing it.
If you're referencing Fetch for mac (pre macos) or Transit by Panic (later renamed to Transmit), I was a fan (and I've been a terminal fanboy since the early 80s). Both of them started as FTP wrappers, and both provided convenience the cli lacked.
I'm not sure about the answer here, but this can be caused by the scoring rubric used by given benchmarks. For instance, if a benchmark docks scores for running too many commands or using too much wall-clock time, higher efforts will get lower scores.
reply