← All topics

biorisk

3 captures, most recent first.

Dave Banerjee @DaveRBanerjee

Dave Banerjee ✔ @DaveRBanerjee · 13h yeah I think the distinction between being ASI pilled and AGI pilled is a big crux for ppl who don't take misalignment risk seriously like if the AIs aren't ASI, then its hard to believe how a bot in a data center can takeover This means that by default, I expect more ppl to be worried about extreme power concentration and biorisk because neither requires ASI, just AGI (though I would note that it is still possible for AGIs to takeover, its just much harder)
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Text-only tweet continuing the "AGI-pilled vs ASI-pilled" discourse thread seen in earlier screenshots in this batch, no images.

agiasimisalignmentai-riskpower-concentrationbiorisktwitter

@tautologer

@tautologer (tautologer ✓) interesting thinking trace from Opus while helping me with my essay about biorisk [Embedded box, styled as an AI reasoning/thinking-trace excerpt]: The tension is real: a rigorous security analysis of "can AI overcome tacit knowledge barriers in weapons development" would naturally lead into specifics about which steps are tacit-limited and how to bypass them—and that specificity is exactly where I'd be providing a roadmap. So I need to help him with the argument structure and scholarship while staying away from the operational details that would constitute actual uplift. tautologer himself seems to be approaching this as a genuine policy analyst interested in AI risk, not someone trying to build a weapon. But my obligation around weapons-enabling content doesn't hinge on intent—the guidelines are clear that I decline technical specifics regardless of framing. The key insight is that the genuinely useful help for his essay lies in argument structure, scholarship, and conceptual analysis rather than operational details. I can be maximally helpful on the safe dimension without being cagey about it. The conceptual question about whether AI can substitute for tacit knowledge is already thoroughly discussed in public literature—RAND's recent work, the biorisk evaluations from major labs—so engaging with that framing is fine. avoid getting into specifics about [cut off] 6:16 PM · Jun 11, 2026 · 582 Views
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Screenshot of a Claude/Opus extended-thinking trace shared as a tweet, showing the model's internal reasoning about balancing helpfulness with biosecurity refusal boundaries.

bioriskai safetyclaude reasoningthinking tracetwitterrefusals

alex fazio @alxfazio

@alxfazio (alex fazio ✈️ rome ✓) — 7h hi there! we couldn't help but overhear you discussing biology from across the room. we really appreciate your enthusiasm, but we're going to need that conversation to come to an end now [Embedded photo: three people (one man in center wearing glasses and a navy cardigan, flanked by two women) posing for a selfie outdoors against a backdrop of skyscrapers under a blue sky]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Joke/meme tweet using an unrelated group selfie photo (three people, city skyline background) to caption an imagined AI-safety-style intervention about a "biology" conversation, likely referencing bio-risk content moderation humor.

humorai safetybiorisktwittermeme