> Can it explain how it intends to get access to primers, a PCR machine, or even test that any of its hypotheses work? Is it going to check in on its cell cultu

> Can it explain how it intends to get access to primers, a PCR machine, or even test that any of its hypotheses work? Is it going to check in on its cell cultures every day for a year? How's it going to passage the cell media, keep it free of mold and bacteria and toxins? These are all very good questions. And the chance of an LLM just straight out solving them from zero to Bond villain is negligible. But at least some want to give these abilities to AIs. Spewing back text in response to a text is not the end game. Many AI researchers and thinkers are talking about “solving cancer with AI”. Very likely that means giving that future AI access to lab equipment. Either directly via robotic manipulators, or indirectly by employing technicians who do the bidding of the AI, or most likely as a mixture of both. Yes, of course there will be human scientist there too. Either working together with the AI, guiding it, or prompting it. This doesn’t have to be an all or nothing thing. And if they want to connect some future AI to lab equipment to aid, and speed up research then it is a fair question to ask if that is going to be safe. Right today we have plenty of experiences where someone wanted to make an AI to solve problem X and the AI technically did so, but in a way which surprised the creators of it. Which points to the direction that we do not know how to control this particular tool yet. This is the message here. > Where's it going to train to do all of that In a lab, where we put it to help us. Probably we will be even helping it, catch it when it stumbles, and improve on it. > and I assume none of us will be watching? Of course we will be watching. Are we smart enough to catch everything, and is our attention long enough if it is just working perfectly without issues for years?