>There are huge barriers to entry between "know how to design/build/deploy a nuke/bioweapon" and "can actually do it". >public models don't provide them with a

>There are huge barriers to entry between "know how to design/build/deploy a nuke/bioweapon" and "can actually do it". >public models don't provide them with a tool more or less powerful than the internet > I'm saying that AI doesn't meaningfully change that landscape because the barrier to operationalizing is high enough that by the time you can operationalize it's unclear why you need to model -- that you couldn't have made the a similar discovery with a bit of extra time or even just used something off the shelf to the same effect. Your expertise is in AI, but the issues here aren't just AI, they involve (for example) chemistry and biology, and I suggest speaking with chemists and biologists on the difference AI makes to their work. You may discover the huge barrier isn't that huge, and that AI can make discoveries easier in ways that 'a little extra time' is strongly underselling (most humans would take a very long time searching throughout possibility-space, such a search may well be detectable since it will require repeated synthesis and experiment...). Also, to borrow an old Marxist chestnut: A sufficient difference in quantity is a qualitative difference*. Make creating weapons easy enough and you get an entirely different world. I get your issues with the 'LessWrong cult', I have quite a few of my own. However, that doesn't make the risks nonexistent, even if we were to discount AGI completely. Given what I see from current industry leaders (often easily bypassed blacklisting) I'm not so impressed with the current safety record. I fear it will crack on the first serious test with disastrous consequences. * There's a smarter phrasing which I can't find or remember.