4 ms·
>I don't think it's impossible to come up with arguments against them. For one thing, extrapolating the current gradual rate of progress forwards means that we
by ShredKazoo 4y ago
>I don't think it's impossible to come up with arguments against them. For one thing, extrapolating the current gradual rate of progress forwards means that we will get to see several minor "intelligence spills" before the hypothetical big and last one, and by observing what went wrong, humanity will have the opportunity to come up with solutions.
This has been discussed under "warning shots" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/idipkijjz5PoxAwju/warning-shots-probably-wouldn-t-change-the-picture-much https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/idipkijjz5PoxAwju/warning-sh...
- whatshisface 4y agoThat blog post makes some giant unsupported assumptions, like that the reason for the failure of a few activists to stop gain-of-function research was that the government is fundamentally bad at addressing risks, and not that biologists might know more about the risk/benefit tradeoff than amateurs.
- ShredKazoo 4y agoWas there even a serious policy discussion of banning gain-of-function research? Gain of function research is supposed to help with pandemics, right? Did it help with COVID?
- whatshisface 4y agoI don't think I know enough to evaluate the case around gain of function research, all I know is that the blog post didn't make any effort to.
- fidgewidge 4y agoGoF research was banned in the USA for long periods, that's why Fauci was outsourcing it to China and why DARPA refused to find that project. No, not only has GoF not helped with COVID and probably caused it, but that's also true of the entire field of virology.