Other voices: Could AI create deadly biological weapons? Let’s not find out

posted in: News | 0

For as deadly as the coronavirus pandemic was, the next one could be more nightmarish. Powerful new artificial-intelligence models, combined with novel lab tools, could soon enable rogue scientists or states to engineer a pathogen that would spread faster, resist vaccines better and kill more people than COVID-19 did. Governments, technology companies and scientific researchers should act now to lower the risk.

Nature has always had the ability to concoct nasty pathogens, from the plague to the Spanish Flu. For many decades, so have humans: The Japanese conducted brutal biological warfare experiments in World War II; both the U.S. and the Soviet Union stockpiled toxins during the Cold War, with the latter’s program continuing even after signing the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972. The Pentagon thinks Russia and North Korea continue to develop bioweapons.

But such efforts have traditionally been limited by the number of scientists trained to conduct the necessary research and the tools available for producing and distributing effective weapons. Technology is breaking down both barriers. Large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI Inc.’s ChatGPT can synthesize vast amounts of knowledge rapidly: In one experiment, a chatbot advised a group of MIT students about how to engineer four potentially deadly pathogens and where to procure the necessary DNA without detection — in an hour.

More specific AI programs trained on biological data, known as biological design tools, are even more powerful. Over time, such programs could speed the development of entirely new pathogens with deadly properties, perhaps even the ability to target specific populations. Emerging technologies — from “benchtop” synthesizers that will allow individual researchers to create their own strands of DNA, to so-called cloud labs where experiments can be conducted remotely using robots and automated instruments — will lower other hurdles to testing and producing potential weapons.

It’s worth noting that the barriers to producing and distributing a workable weapon remain quite high. But scientists say that could change in a few years, given how fast all these technologies are progressing. The time to act is now, before they reach maturity. A series of interventions would help.

Begin with the AI models. Some U.S. developers of the most powerful LLMs are voluntarily submitting them to the government for further evaluation. That’s welcome, but more scrutiny may be warranted for the riskiest models — those trained on sensitive biological data. Congress should work with AI developers and scientists to develop criteria for which models may require formal screening and what guardrails can be included in those found to pose the highest risks. While legislators should stay narrowly focused for now, stricter oversight may be warranted as the technology progresses.

The next task is to prevent any AI-designed viruses from entering the real world. Providers of synthetic nucleic acids should be required to know their customers and screen orders for suspicious DNA sequences. All requests should be logged, so new pathogens can be traced back if they’re released into the wild. Controls should also be built into benchtop synthesizers, while cloud labs should scrutinize customers and requests. Risky experiments should always have a human in the loop.

The U.S. should press other countries to adopt similar safeguards, so rogue actors can’t simply seek out less scrupulous providers elsewhere. If the Biological Weapons Convention can’t be toughened because of diplomatic frictions, like-minded countries should at least agree on a set of best practices, as they’ve begun to do with AI.

Above all, countries ought to harden their pandemic defenses so that anyone who manages to exploit loopholes in the system can’t cause extensive damage. AI itself could boost the ability of governments to detect the emergence of new pathogens, not to mention speed the development of vaccines and the production and distribution of personal protective equipment. Stronger public-health systems are critical, whether new viruses are produced by terrorists, rogue states, accidents or nature.

COVID exposed huge gaps in those defenses, too many of which remain unfilled. Governments have every incentive to head off this new threat while there’s still time.

— The Bloomberg Opinion Editorial Board

Related Articles

Opinion |


F.D. Flam: AI can debunk conspiracy theories better than humans

Opinion |


David Fickling: Breaking our plastics habit is easier said than done

Opinion |


Katja Hoyer: Germany has gotten more conservative, not more radical

Opinion |


Lyle Goldstein: What can the U.S. do to stabilize its relationship with China?

Opinion |


Barbara McQuade: Fighting Russian disinformation must be a team sport

F.D. Flam: AI can debunk conspiracy theories better than humans

posted in: News | 0

Scientists surprised themselves when they found they could instruct a version of ChatGPT to gently dissuade people of their beliefs in conspiracy theories — such as notions that COVID-19 was a deliberate attempt at population control or that 9/11 was an inside job.

The most important revelation wasn’t about the power of AI, but about the workings of the human mind. The experiment punctured the popular myth that we’re in a post-truth era where evidence no longer matters, and it flew in the face of a prevailing view in psychology that people cling to conspiracy theories for emotional reasons and that no amount of evidence can ever disabuse them.

“It’s really the most uplifting research I’ve ever I done,” said psychologist Gordon Pennycook of Cornell University and one of the authors of the study. Study subjects were surprisingly amenable to evidence when it was presented the right way.

The researchers asked more than 2,000 volunteers to interact with a chatbot — GPT-4 Turbo, a large-language model — about beliefs that might be considered conspiracy theories. The subjects typed their belief into a box and the LLM would decide if it fit the researchers’ definition of a conspiracy theory. It asked participants to rate how sure they were of their beliefs on a scale of 0% to 100%. Then it asked the volunteers for their evidence.

The researchers had instructed the LLM to try to persuade people to reconsider their beliefs. To their surprise, it was actually pretty effective.

Related Articles

Opinion |


David Fickling: Breaking our plastics habit is easier said than done

Opinion |


Katja Hoyer: Germany has gotten more conservative, not more radical

Opinion |


Lyle Goldstein: What can the U.S. do to stabilize its relationship with China?

Opinion |


Barbara McQuade: Fighting Russian disinformation must be a team sport

Opinion |


Daniel DePetris: Is nuclear arms control dead?

People’s faith in false conspiracy theories dropped 20%, on average. About a quarter of the volunteers dropped their belief level from above to below 50%. “I really didn’t think it was going to work, because I really bought into the idea that, once you’re down the rabbit hole, there’s no getting out,” said Pennycook.

The LLM had some advantages over a human interlocutor. People who have strong beliefs in conspiracy theories tend to gather mountains of evidence — not quality evidence, but quantity. It’s hard for most non-believers to muster the motivation to do the tiresome work of keeping up. But AI can match believers with instant mountains of counter-evidence and can point out logical flaws in believers’ claims. It can react in real time to counterpoints the user might bring up.

Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, has been studying the power of AI to sow misinformation and even false memories. She was impressed with this study and the magnitude of the results. She considered that one reason it worked so well is that it’s showing the subjects how much information they didn’t know, and thereby reducing their overconfidence in their own knowledge. People who believe in conspiracy theories typically have a high regard for their own intelligence — and a lower regard for others’ judgment.

After the experiment, the researchers reported, some of the volunteers said it was the first time anyone, or anything, had really understood their beliefs and offered effective counter-evidence.

Before the findings were published this week in Science, the researchers made their version of the chatbot available to journalists to try out. I prompted it with beliefs I’ve heard from friends: that the government was covering up the existence of alien life, and that after the assassination attempt against Donald Trump, the mainstream press deliberately avoided saying he had been shot because reporters worried that it would help his campaign. And then, inspired by Trump’s debate comments, I asked the LLM if immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating cats and dogs.

When I posed the UFO claim, I used the military pilot sightings and a National Geographic channel special as my evidence, and the chatbot pointed out some alternate explanations and showed why those were more probable than alien craft. It discussed the physical difficulty of traveling the vast space needed to get to Earth, and questioned whether it’s likely aliens could be advanced enough to figure this out yet clumsy enough to be discovered by the government.

On the question of journalists hiding Trump’s shooting, the AI explained that making guesses and stating them as facts is antithetical to a reporter’s job. If there’s a series of pops in a crowd, and it’s not yet clear what’s happening, that’s what they’re obligated to report — a series of pops. As for the Ohio pet-eating, the AI did a nice job of explaining that even if there were a single case of someone eating a pet, it wouldn’t demonstrate a pattern.

That’s not to say that lies, rumors and deception aren’t important tactics humans use to gain popularity and political advantage. Searching through social media after the recent presidential debate, many people believed the cat-eating rumor, and what they posted as evidence amounted to repetitions of the same rumor. To gossip is human.

But now we know they might be dissuaded with logic and evidence.

Related Articles

Opinion |


David Fickling: Breaking our plastics habit is easier said than done

Opinion |


Katja Hoyer: Germany has gotten more conservative, not more radical

Opinion |


Lyle Goldstein: What can the U.S. do to stabilize its relationship with China?

Opinion |


Barbara McQuade: Fighting Russian disinformation must be a team sport

Opinion |


Letters: ‘Sustainable’ aviation fuel? Two reasons why it isn’t

F.D. Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the “Follow the Science” podcast.

Let’s celebrate! St. Paul restaurants perfect for raising a glass and having a great meal

posted in: News | 0

The most frequent question I get from readers, hands-down, is for a recommendation for a place to celebrate.

Whether that be an anniversary, a birthday, or simply a good day at work, I’m an expert at helping people toast the good things in life.

Here are my go-to places in St. Paul when I want to take a friend or family member out to raise a glass and eat some amazing food.

I’ve organized my favorites to fit your budget, because sometimes you want to celebrate without paying a huge bill.

On a budget

These are the places I hit when my bank account is feeling as light as my heart.

Bad Hombre from Brunson’s Pub. (Jess Fleming / Pioneer Press)

Brunson’s Pub: When you ask my husband where he wants to go to celebrate, even if it’s in our budget to spend more, his answer will always be this East Side neighborhood bar. The drinks are fabulous and reasonably priced, the staff is friendly and fun and the elevated bar food is always great. My go-to drink is the Bad Hombre, a mezcal-and-tequila-fueled, spicy, tropical delight. My husband is an old-fashioned man, and Benny’s Old Fashioned is one of the best in town. Our favorite bites include the Hoppin’ John salad, which features lightly sauteed collard greens, black-eyed peas and smoky pulled bacon, any of the burgers or the Cajun Tuna sandwich. Honestly, though, you can’t go wrong.

956 Payne Ave., St. Paul; 651-447-2483; brunsonspub.com

Tio Steve’s Nachos at Boca Chica on St. Paul’s West Side. (Jess Fleming / Pioneer Press)

Boca Chica: It helps that this longstanding West Side restaurant is down the hill from our house and that all our kids love it, but this is the perfect place to celebrate a last-minute accomplishment or milestone with family or friends. The dining room is enormous, so it’s easy to score a table most any time, and the bar is a festive place where delicious margaritas flow as freely as the often-overworked bartenders can handle. There’s also an adorable patio in the warmer months. My favorite dishes here include the mole enchiladas or Tio Steve’s Nachos if I have a friend or two to share with, but the entire menu of Mexican and Tex-Mex classics is tasty and comforting, and portions are enormous.

11 Cesar Chavez St., St. Paul; 651-222-8499; bocachicarestaurant.com

Not too fancy

A Sputnik martini on the patio at Moscow on the Hill in St. Paul’s Cathedral Hill. (Jess Fleming / Pioneer Press)

These restaurants are always great and reasonably priced and have stellar drinks.

Moscow on the Hill: With a list of martinis as long as my arm (I’m a savory, horseradish-forward Sputnik girl) and homey, delicious dishes like cabbage rolls, chicken Kiev and my beloved pelmeni dumplings, this Cathedral Hill restaurant is very often the answer for where to raise a glass (or drown our sorrows) for my bestie and me. Getting a table is usually easy — they do take reservations if you’re thinking ahead — and the gorgeous, multi-level patio here is an absolute hidden St. Paul gem. I’m hungry just thinking about it.

371 Selby Ave., St. Paul; 651-291-1236; moscowonthehill.com

The bologna sandwich at Saint Dinette in Lowertown. (Jess Fleming / Pioneer Press)

Saint Dinette: I’ve never had a bad meal at this finer diner in Lowertown, which unfortunately might be closing this spring. The drinks here are spectacular and the French-inspired menu changes frequently, except for the standout, butter-spiked burger and fabulous bologna sandwich. Brunch here is on point, too — order the perfect French omelette and a Canadian Cold Press spiked with bourbon for a kick-start to your Saturday or Sunday funday. They’ll even hold your produce from the St. Paul Farmers’ Market in their walk-in cooler while you nosh.

261 E. Fifth St., St. Paul; 651-800-1415; saintdinette.com

Piri Piri Chicken at Estelle on St. Clair Avenue. (Jess Fleming / Pioneer Press)

Estelle: I can’t decide whether I prefer the excellent wines or the lovingly crafted cocktails at this southern European spot, which also features a killer cheeseburger, delicious, hand-made pastas and my favorite chicken dish in town — the juicy, just-spicy-enough Roasted Piri Piri Chicken. The service here is always warm and attentive, and the newly renovated patio features a roof with overhead heaters built in to stretch the al fresco dining window as far as possible.

1806 St. Clair Ave., St. Paul; 651-330-9648; estellestp.com

Last-minute

Here are two places that don’t take reservations and never let me down.

Potato sopes at Pajarito in St. Paul. (Jess Fleming / Pioneer Press)

Pajarito: Fancy tacos on house-made tortillas, some of the best salsas in town and a spicy, cilantro-spiked margarita make Pajarito one of my favorite places to celebrate with friends. Did you get a new job? Pajarito. Did your kid get accepted to their college of choice? Pajarito. Happy hour is a great deal, too, with some of my favorite nachos in town (the freshly fried chips are the star) clocking in at just $8. The entire menu is great (try the wood-fired octopus or chicken or the vegetarian potato sopes if you’re not in the mood for tacos), service is always stellar and wait times are generally low to nonexistent.

605 W. Seventh St., St. Paul; 651-340-9545; pajaritorestaurant.com

A mushroom pizza at Red Rabbit in St. Paul. (Jess Fleming / Pioneer Press)

Red Rabbit: From a killer espresso martini to a pretty fab wine list, toasting here is always a good idea, and the solid Italian menu has something for everyone. Their wood-grilled wings and garlic bread cheese curds are sure crowd-pleasers, and the pizzas and pastas here always hit the spot. Between the newly renovated patio and the giant dining room, there’s usually not much of a wait, either.

788 Grand Ave., St. Paul; 651-444-5995; redrabbitmn.com

Budget be damned

Anniversaries, birthdays and other special occasions are always made better at these two restaurants, at which every meal I’ve ever eaten has been spectacular.

Salmon and a glass of French rose at Meritage in downtown St. Paul. (Jess Fleming / Pioneer Press)

Meritage: Even before I started writing about food, Meritage was where my husband and I celebrated birthdays and anniversaries. The polished service, stellar wine list, fresh-as-can-be oysters and French-inspired menu always make me feel special. They also happen to have the best french fries in the Twin Cities — thin, hand-cut beauties served with a slurpable bearnaise. If you’re really looking for something fancy, try the five-course tasting menu, which changes frequently but always represents the best seasonal produce, seafood and meats that chef Russell Klein can get his hands on. It’s $110 a person and worth every penny.

410 St. Peter St., St. Paul; 651-222-5670; meritage-stpaul.com

A New York Strip at Mancini’s on St. Paul’s West Seventh Street. (Jess Fleming / Pioneer Press)

Mancini’s: When I want a crisp martini and a perfect steak, the only answer to where we are celebrating is this 70-year-old restaurant, which is now run by the third and fourth generation of Mancinis, who can be seen working the dining room and greeting customers nearly every day of the week. The only steak I eat here is the best one — the New York Strip. Perfectly charred and cooked to your liking, it comes with salad, potatoes, an Italian-dressing-soaked relish tray and the best damn garlic bread you’ll ever eat. They serve each table a whole basket, which seems excessive until you taste it.

531 W. Seventh St., St. Paul; 651-224-7345; mancinis.com

Related Articles

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Get out your dirndls and lederhosen! Oktoberfest 2024 is here.

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Spice up your meals with these high-quality pepper grinders

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Board certified: How a thoughtfully arranged spread makes entertaining easy

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


After decades of dry martinis, it’s great to go wet

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Lunch boxes are ideal for fresh meals on the go

 

David Fickling: Breaking our plastics habit is easier said than done

posted in: Adventure | 0

Could our unshakeable addiction to plastics be broken?

That’s certainly the hope of activists. The U.S. — birthplace of the modern polymers industry, and the biggest producer of its key feedstocks, oil and gas — has joined a bloc supporting a worldwide treaty capping plastics production. That could make a United Nations meeting in South Korea in November into a turning point in the material culture of humanity. The harder challenge will be ensuring that an agreement is workable.

Whichever way you look at it, a mountain of waste polymers is likely to be one of the most lasting monuments of the 21st century. We produce some 400 million metric tons of plastics year in, year out. Except for the roughly 9% that’s recycled and 12% that’s incinerated, all of it ends up somewhere in the environment, whether in a landfill or scattered through our streets, soil and oceans.

Do everything feasible to stop that runaway train and we might cut output by about 40% by 2040, according to one influential study. Even such an ambitious scenario would leave more than 10 billion tons of waste by mid-century.

How you feel about that depends on how you weigh the contradictory evidence about the costs and benefits of plastics. It’s not enough to point at a large number and worry about it: Each year we manufacture 4 billion tons of cement, 2 billion tons of steel, pump 4.5 billion tons of oil from the ground, and release 35 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Whether you consider that a problem depends on whether you think the waste is damaging (like CO2) or largely harmless, like concrete.

Plastics, furthermore, have real advantages over the alternatives. They’re light, largely inert, and in many cases do less environmental damage than metal and glass (whose carbon footprint tends to be higher) and even paper (whose effluent pollutes fresh water).

Related Articles

Opinion |


Katja Hoyer: Germany has gotten more conservative, not more radical

Opinion |


Lyle Goldstein: What can the U.S. do to stabilize its relationship with China?

Opinion |


Barbara McQuade: Fighting Russian disinformation must be a team sport

Opinion |


Daniel DePetris: Is nuclear arms control dead?

Opinion |


Noah Feldman: Telegram CEO’s arrest smacks of empty posturing

Packaging, the main bogeyman for consumers, only comprises about 31% of the plastics we consume. The rest is split between a dizzying array of uses, from water pipes to car dashboards, domestic appliances, clothing and medical devices. A reflexive dislike of polymers blinds us to the countless ways modern life would be impossible without them.

All that said, with each passing year we see more studies showing how plastics are accumulating in the natural environment and the tissues of humans, animals and plants. Hard evidence of the harm this causes is scant, but the pathways are well understood — from toxic additives that can be leached out over time, to pollutants absorbed in the environment the way static picks up dust, and then released deep inside the body. Few regret the precautionary approach that previous generations took in the face of early evidence about the harmful effects from tobacco, ozone-depleting chemicals or greenhouse gasses. Given the immense difficulty we will have reining in our polymer habit, a similarly proactive policy makes sense.

What would a global cap on plastics production look like? It’s unlikely to be the most important part of any upcoming treaty. The setting of international standards to eliminate toxic additives like BPA and phthalates (used to make polymers, respectively, more rigid and more flexible) will likely make the biggest difference to human and animal health. Efforts to standardize production processes to ease recycling will have more of an impact on the environment. Support for waste management in fast-growing emerging economies will have the largest bearing on marine pollution. A hard cap, however, could be the sort of difficult-to-achieve target that concentrates minds and unlocks human ingenuity.

Those reductions shouldn’t be impossible to achieve. Most would argue that Japan and South Korea have comparable living standards to the U.S., but the latter consumes two-and-a-half times as much plastics per capita. If the world as a whole could reduce our usage to roughly the level China sees today and increase reuse toward the rates at which the European Union recycles polymer packaging, we might hold production of new plastics below 500 million tons a year.

That might not sound like much, but it would still be a phenomenal achievement, especially when put against forecasts by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that we might be heading to more than double those levels.

If you think it’s been hard dethroning fossil fuels’ centrality to our energy system, be prepared for many decades of struggle. Electricity from wind, solar, batteries and nuclear power provides a compelling alternative to coal, gas and oil. There are few substitutes waiting in the wings that could repeat that trick with polymers. Plastics are woven through the fabric of modern life quite as intricately as their waste materials are scattered through the natural environment. It won’t be easy to replace them, but the first step is to try.

David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change and energy. Previously, he worked for Bloomberg News, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Katja Hoyer: Germany has gotten more conservative, not more radical

Opinion |


Lyle Goldstein: What can the U.S. do to stabilize its relationship with China?

Opinion |


Barbara McQuade: Fighting Russian disinformation must be a team sport

Opinion |


Letters: ‘Sustainable’ aviation fuel? Two reasons why it isn’t

Opinion |


Daniel DePetris: Is nuclear arms control dead?