this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2026
19 points (73.2% liked)

Fuck AI

8737 readers
1669 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

Rules:

You can help the mod team by making your reports detailed.

Effective reports:

Less effective reports:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Apparently AI under the control of a rogue actor is undoubtedly going to kill us all with a synthesized virus.

Let me run you through how brain rotted the world is now that this is even being taken in the slightest seriousness.

You cant just prompt an AI model, hey make me a humanity ending virus, no mistakes and send it to the printers. That's not how reality works. To generate a world ending virus. You will need the following chain of events. If each one fails, the whole chain of events fail.

Step A: AI generates a viable novel pathogen sequence.

Highly unlikely without massive human intervention and iterative wet-lab feedback. Let’s say 1% chance for a non-expert using public tools.

Step B: The sequence is stable enough to be synthesized and remain infectious.

Many generated sequences are nonsense or unstable. Probability of viability: 5%.

Step C: It bypasses DNA synthesis screening (Know-Your-Customer rules).

Screening is imperfect but effective against known dangerous motifs. Probability: 10%.

Step D: The actor has access to a BSL-3/4 lab capable of handling high-consequence pathogens.

You forget extensive of testing of the novel virus canidates is needed so you can validate the virus's virality. You can’t do this in a garage. You need specialized infrastructure, containment, waste disposal, and ethical blind spots. Probability for a random bad actor: <0.1%.

Step E: The virus achieves optimal transmissibility AND lethality simultaneously.

Biologically, these often trade off. High lethality usually kills the host before they spread it widely. Finding the "sweet spot" is incredibly hard. Probability: 1%.

Step F: It spreads globally before detection/response.

Modern surveillance, travel restrictions, and medical response are faster than in 1918 or 2020. Probability of total global saturation before countermeasures: 5%.

Any one of these fail and you dont get an outbreak.

Total Probability:

0.01 ×0.05 ×0.10 ×0.001 ×0.01 ×0.05 =0.00000000000025%

And before you say state actor will do this. They already can if they want to.

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Unless you have a source for all of those numbers, this is just "I think it's unlikely and here are the things I perceive as obstacles." Adding made-up numbers to them is just noise.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I was about to also ask where these numbers are coming from.

[–] sagemythos11@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

lol there is no source bro, its a educated guess. no one has a robust study on viability of some guy setting up a secure wet lab. All im saying is .... its kinda a joke that "AI will kill us all because its going to engineer a deadly virus".

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] sagemythos11@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

ok sure i'll bite, either tell me where i can source these numbers or tell me why im not allowed to make an educated guess or what part about these probabilities are you disputing as completely logically unsound. come on, i'll wait for your response. otherwise fuck outta here you big tech shill

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

either tell me where i can source these numbers

That's your problem, not mine. If you don't even know where to look, don't spout off.

or tell me why im not allowed to make an educated guess

You're allowed to say whatever you want, and I'm allowed to call it nonsense. I see no reason to call your guesses educated.

or what part about these probabilities are you disputing as completely logically unsound

The fact that you're providing literally no basis for them. I could just as easily make your post and change all of the numbers to 100% and I'd have exactly as much evidence as you do.

otherwise fuck outta here you big tech shill

I'm not even saying that your conclusion is wrong. I'm saying that your argument is stupid. You might as well have said "LLMs won't eradicate humans with a virus because Mickey Mouse came to me in a dream and told me so."

[–] sagemythos11@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

my argument is stupid because ? you still haven't said why ? all you said was ... well i can call you stupid because i can do whatever i want.

btw can i ask if you have mental retardation ?

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

my argument is stupid because ? you still haven't said why ?

Your argument is stupid because you used a bunch of numbers that you made up. I said that very clearly.

all you said was ... well i can call you stupid because i can do whatever i want.

No, that was after I repeatedly pointed out that you just hallucinated the probabilities.

btw can i ask if you have mental retardation ?

I assume that you can, yes.

[–] sagemythos11@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

ohhh ok. so the AI is going to create a virus and kills us all that Dario is preaching. He totally didnt make that one up yeah ?

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Maybe, maybe not. Given LLMs' success in certain molecular research, like protein folding, I'd guess (see how easily it is to not pretend that making shit up is authoritative?) that the probability isn't zero. I certainly don't trust tech CEOs, though.

[–] sagemythos11@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

you sir are an idiot, you just made up non zero probability ROFLMAO mate you are brain rotted. keep on shilling man

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago

And I labeled it as a guess, and my error bars are nearly the entire probability space. I didn't just make up a bunch of numbers and pretend that they were authoritative.

I literally would not have replied to your initial post at all if you had just listed the obstacles instead of making up numbers and pretending that they meant anything.

Okay, now what are the odds of an AI lab full of hubris removing those safeguards and then giving it the means to synthesize pathogens?

[–] diz@awful.systems 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

So here’s the thing, AI labs got billions of dollars to spend on making this “rogue” accident happen. They can buy a lab, kit it out, do some random sequence mixing with already deadly viruses, have natural selection do the heavy lifting, and then claim that they were trying to cure cancer, but their AI is so good it made a supervirus. (Of course, the supervirus is unlikely to be all that good, but it doesn’t have to be, they’ll just hype up what could have happened).

That is basically what they did for hacking, and they didn’t get in any kind of trouble, so they will be escalating and escalating. Keep in mind these folks have always been about applying “fake it until you make it” attitude to the end of the world. They had been promising their investors a double digit % chance of ending the world, from the very beginning of these companies.

[–] sagemythos11@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

yeah that is the real danger .... and it fucking keeps me up at night.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

It’s unlikely that whatever catastrophic outcome occurs will be in anyone’s top 10.

It’s just as likely some critical component of human survival is tied to AI, AI goes buggy, human survival systems stumble and massive famine results.

[–] gdog05@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I've said it before but I feel it's important to note that the tech bros have access to all of the CDC data and Peter Theil is a big investor in AbCellera Biogenics which is a very advanced lab. There is risk in this space.

[–] Lickems@piefed.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not some random dude in a garage, it's the unregulated tech overlords and autocrats that could do it. AI isn't intelligent, but it has amazing pattern matching capabilities. It's going to create all sorts of advancements in science, and to deny the problems that comes with this is both silly and dangerous.

If we want to fight ai, we have to understand it. It's not a conscious omnipotent god like the tech bros think, but it's also not a useless fad. Real scientists are warning of its potential consequences, and governments all over the world are investing trillions to improve it.

In a decade, it should be at least twice as powerful as it is today, and that is indeed a big deal.

[–] sagemythos11@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

mate im not defending these tech fucks. im saying they are talking out of their arse. can they do it ? yes probably. but they are using the narrative for regulatory capture.