I don’t actually think you need to retract your comment — most of the teams they used did have (at least some) biological expertise, and it’s really unclear how much info the addition of the crimson cells adds. (You could add a note saying that they did try to evaluate this with the additional of two crimson cells? In any case, up to you.)
(I will also say that I don’t actually know anything about what we should expect about the expertise that we might see on terrorist cells planning biological attacks — i.e. I don’t know which of these is actually appropriate.)
Changed it to a note. As for the latter, my intuition is that we should probably hedge for the full spectrum, from no experience to some wet bio background (but the case where we get an expert seems much more unlikely).
Thanks for the flag! I’ve retracted my comment. I missed this while skimming the paper
The paper still acknowledged this as a limitation (not having the no LLM control), but it gives some useful data points in this direction!
I don’t actually think you need to retract your comment — most of the teams they used did have (at least some) biological expertise, and it’s really unclear how much info the addition of the crimson cells adds. (You could add a note saying that they did try to evaluate this with the additional of two crimson cells? In any case, up to you.)
(I will also say that I don’t actually know anything about what we should expect about the expertise that we might see on terrorist cells planning biological attacks — i.e. I don’t know which of these is actually appropriate.)
Changed it to a note. As for the latter, my intuition is that we should probably hedge for the full spectrum, from no experience to some wet bio background (but the case where we get an expert seems much more unlikely).