It only sounds legit to people who don't understand biology and haven't done advanced laboratory work. Sort of like Michael Crichton novels: superficially plausible but not grounded in any real science.

▲

jswelker 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I see no actual argument here.

▲

nradov 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You haven't made any argument either, so I suppose we're even.

▲

jswelker an hour ago | parent [-]

My argument was that it is reasonable to be concerned that human terrorists might use AI to assist with building bioweapons.

▲

nradov an hour ago | parent [-]

That's merely an assertion unsupported by any reliable evidence, not an actual argument. In short you're just making shit up.

	▲	jswelker 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Well that's the nature of trying to prevent a thing that hasn't happened yet right? What would be reliable evidence except that terrorists already used AI to help build a bioweapon? I'm sure before 9/11 talking about terrorists using commercial airplanes as makeshift missiles seemed like scaremongering too. I see zero technical reasons why it could not be done, so being concerned about prevention seems pretty reasonable. I'm not saying AI uses robotic arms to build a bioweapon unassisted or something, just that it dramatically empowers bad actors enough to make them capable of things they previously were not.