> the oversight of more estabilished international agreements and safeguards?
“Unlike the chemical or nuclear weapons regimes, the [Biological Weapons Convention] lacks both a system to verify states' compliance with the treaty and a separate international organization to support the convention's effective implementation” [1].
Biological weapons compliance is entirely voluntary. We don’t have international monitors watching America and Russia’s smallpox stockpiles. That’s left to each nation.
Your angle is "there is no oversight, why are you asking for it?". It's the same overall angle as the guy who was spreading covid rumours here in this thread.
There are efforts at estabilishing it though. And it's hard and expensive for wet labs, but it could be much simpler for things like simulating biological pathways.
One could also see your response as "other nations are developing threats, we should race", which I personally think is misguided.
Instead of these petty armchair discussions, we should instead focus on being more serious about it.
I mean.. they work within the legal frameworks of very large corporations with nation state engagement. It's not like they're autonomous anonymous DAOs
Hi! I work directly on these teams as a model builder and have talked to my colleagues are the other labs well.
All our orgs have openings and if you also could consider working for organizations such as the UK AISI team and other independent organizations that are assessing these models. It's a critical field and there is a need for motivated folks.
It does. It's just your worldview is pretty black and white. All of these teams ultimately answer to executives that report to a board, that board is guided by a Chief Legal Officer that engages with regulators among other groups. Some guidance will come back as direct control. A lot might come back as soft preferences / guidance to executives.
