Note that there is Open Phil funded research arguing that AI is not an important contributor to biorisk, and that access controls are not an effective mechanism for biorisk reduction,which was not cited (as far as I can see) in the post. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22539/. This undermines the thesis that they "got what they paid for and what they wanted: "science" that's good enough to include in a policy paper as a footnote, simply intended to support the pre-existing goal -- "Ban open source AI" -- of those policy papers".
Note that there is Open Phil funded research arguing that AI is not an important contributor to biorisk, and that access controls are not an effective mechanism for biorisk reduction,which was not cited (as far as I can see) in the post. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22539/. This undermines the thesis that they "got what they paid for and what they wanted: "science" that's good enough to include in a policy paper as a footnote, simply intended to support the pre-existing goal -- "Ban open source AI" -- of those policy papers".
A specific relevant e... (read more)