If you had a proposal that you thought could lead to superintelligence in the medium term (3-5 years), what should you do with it?
So basically, the CDC is indeed going in this direction.
Remember all the scary stuff the engineers said a terrorist could think to do? Someone could write a computer program to do them just randomly.
"We need free software and hardware so that we can control the programs that run our lives, instead of having a third party control them."
"We need collective governance and monitoring arrangements to keep unfriendly AI accidents from happening."
These statements appear to be in conflict. Does anyone see a resolution?
Assuming this is serious, have you reached out to them?
The salary offer is high enough that any academic would at least take the call. If they're not interested themselves, you might be able to produce an endowment to get their lab working on your problems, or at a bare minimum, get them to refer one or more of their current/former students.
So you procured study drugs from an illicit source, took them, felt your body temp rise, stopped taking them, spent the next few days sleeping like crazy, and presented at the hospital?
Did they do a tox screen (meth and similar stimulants?)
I posted on another thread a while ago, according to dancesafe, counterfeit modafinil that's actually low dose methamphetamine was being marketed in Berkeley. I'd expect this to be common, because the following reasoning is a 'flash of inspiration' I'd expect a drug dealer to have...
Nerds have money -> nerds want study drugs -> most study drugs are stimulants -> pill press is cheap -> meth is widely available -> dilute the meth doses you'd usually sell to tweakers, put in pill press to look like study drug, sell to nerds.
Brilliant plan right?
What were the symptoms that led you to go to the hospital, and what did they observe there that convinced them to have you stay after the initial exam?
To summarize using information security language:
"Passive SETI exposes an attack surface which accepts unsanitized input from literally anyone, anywhere in the universe. This is very risky to human civilization.'
"how could it possibly be toxic in vivo, we had a scoring for toxicity in our combinational chemistry model!"
Usually when you're screening for tox effects in a candidate you're looking for off target effects (some metabolic process produces a toxic aniline compound which goes off into some other part of the body, usually the liver and breaks something), in this particular case, that isn't the whole picture. Galantamine (useful drug, originally said memantine which is taken with it but isn't in the same class) and VX (nerve agent) are both acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, a key difference is that VX is much better at it.
One way to achieve the aim in the paper would be to set the model to produce putative acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, rank them by estimated binding efficiency, then setting a breakpoint line between assessed 'safe' and assessed 'toxic'. Usually you'd be looking under the line (safe), in this case, they're looking above it (toxic).
My point was that in my opinion, being open to the possibility of the line having been placed in the wrong place (special efforts) is probably wise. This opens up an interesting question about research ethics--would doing experimental work to characterize edge cases in order to refine the model (location of the line) be legitimate or malign?
All biological sciences research is dual use. If you don't see the evil, you're not looking hard enough. More shocked at the tone of the paper, which implies that this is surprising to the model developers than the result. When you can do combinatorial chemistry in silico, you can make all sorts of stuff...
They don't mention accident scenarios, as far as that goes, I imagine that some of the compounds they found by looking for bad stuff might show up if they're looking for memantine (edit: meant galantamine, whoops) like Alzheimer's drugs and don't take special efforts to avoid the toxic modes of action.