Consider that a detailed answer to this question might constitute an information hazard. How should experts respond to a forum question like “what is the most infectious lethal virus which could be engineered and released today”?
Consider that a detailed answer to this question might constitute an information hazard.
I don’t think this is dangerous to talk about. If anything, talking publicly about my preferred attack vectors helps the world better triage them and (if necessary) deploy countermeasures. It’s not like anybody is really going to throw away $1 billion for the sake of evil.
I agree; open discussion and red-teaming are valuable and I’m not concerned by your proposed (anti-?) financial attack vector. To quote Bostrom:
There are many ways of responding to information hazards. In many cases, the best response is no response, i.e., to proceed as though no such hazard existed. The benefits of information may so far outweigh its costs that even when information hazards are fully accounted for, we still under-invest in the gathering and dissemination of information. Moreover, ignorance carries its own dangers which are oftentimes greater than those of knowledge.
“[W]hat is the most infectious lethal virus which could be engineered and released today”?
Off the top of my head, my first impulse is to upgrade an influenza virus via gain-of-function research. Influenza spreads easily and used to kill lots of people. Plus, you can infect ferrets with it. (Ferrets have similar respiratory systems to human beings.) I don’t think it’s dangerous to talk about weaponized influenza because these facts are already public knowledge among biologists.
Consider that a detailed answer to this question might constitute an information hazard. How should experts respond to a forum question like “what is the most infectious lethal virus which could be engineered and released today”?
I don’t think this is dangerous to talk about. If anything, talking publicly about my preferred attack vectors helps the world better triage them and (if necessary) deploy countermeasures. It’s not like anybody is really going to throw away $1 billion for the sake of evil.
I agree; open discussion and red-teaming are valuable and I’m not concerned by your proposed (anti-?) financial attack vector. To quote Bostrom:
Off the top of my head, my first impulse is to upgrade an influenza virus via gain-of-function research. Influenza spreads easily and used to kill lots of people. Plus, you can infect ferrets with it. (Ferrets have similar respiratory systems to human beings.) I don’t think it’s dangerous to talk about weaponized influenza because these facts are already public knowledge among biologists.