86
Scientists Sound Alarm on AI-Generated Biological Viruses Amid Unregulated Industry
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2026
86 points (94.8% liked)
Technology
87550 readers
3146 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They made hundreds and 16 worked (when synthesized by humans), seems stochastic to me. Humans do better to my knowledge (I'm out of touch but do have a relevant background). It's based on LLM architecture (using genes and proteins in place of language), also known as a stochastic parrot, which was the sense in which I was using it.
I don't deny it's a scary technology, more because of the likelihood of mistakes (or as AI companies like to say, 'hallucinations', anthropomorphising as advertising) than any intention.
As usual with this type of technology you need to be competent with the field before it becomes a force multiplier, and those people could already make viruses, and have been able to for a long time. For example, one of the previous stochastic methods was randomized mutation in a specific environment.
Do humans do better? By what objective metric? How many of these have humans even made in history?
Also you don't really need a human to verify these outputs, they just tried them. How many of these have humans even made? Also for the first of its kind with no previous rlhf scheme a 5% success rate is actually insane, this rate has historically dramatically improved with successive versions.
The stochastic parrot paper was nonsense, neurons are entirely stochastic. Stochastic models can be made very accurate