REVIEW 4 cited by
Towards Responsible Governance of Biological Design Tools
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Recent advancements in generative machine learning have enabled rapid progress in biological design tools (BDTs) such as protein structure and sequence prediction models. The unprecedented predictive accuracy and novel design capabilities of BDTs present new and significant dual-use risks. For example, their predictive accuracy allows biological agents, whether vaccines or pathogens, to be developed more quickly, while the design capabilities could be used to discover drugs or evade DNA screening techniques. Similar to other dual-use AI systems, BDTs present a wicked problem: how can regulators uphold public safety without stifling innovation? We highlight how current regulatory proposals that are primarily tailored toward large language models may be less effective for BDTs, which require fewer computational resources to train and are often developed in an open-source manner. We propose a range of measures to mitigate the risk that BDTs are misused, across the areas of responsible development, risk assessment, transparency, access management, cybersecurity, and investing in resilience. Implementing such measures will require close coordination between developers and governments.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Towards Responsible Governing AI Proliferation
The paper proposes a 'Proliferation' paradigm of AI, where small, hidden, augmented, decentralized, and open-weight models challenge compute-centric governance.
-
Forbidden Science: Dual-Use AI Challenge Benchmark and Scientific Refusal Tests
A new 512-prompt benchmark claims to measure LLM over-refusal on scientific dual-use questions, but its design and labeling flaws undermine the claim.
-
The Reality of AI and Biorisk
A review of the evidence finds no current, statistically significant uplift in biorisk from LLMs or AI biological tools, but the underlying studies are too nascent to justify strong conclusions.
-
From Turing to Tomorrow: The UK's Approach to AI Regulation
The UK should establish a flexible, principles-based regulator for frontier AI development, plus defensive measures against biological risks and updated legal frameworks for copyright, discrimination, and AI agents.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.