Strong disagree. A bioweapons lab working in secret on gain of function research for a somewhat belligerent despotic government, which denies everything after an accidental release is nowhere near any model I have of ‘scrupulous altruism’.
Ironically, the person I mentioned in my previous comment is one of the main players at Anthropic, so your second paragraph doesn’t give me much comfort.
I think that it’s more likely to be the result of an effort to mitigate potential harm from future pandemics. One piece of evidence that supports this is the grant proposal, which was rejected by DARPA, that is described in this New Yorker article. The grant proposal was co-submitted by the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit which is “dedicated to mitigating the emergence of infectious diseases”, according to the article.
Ironically, the person I mentioned in my previous comment is one of the main players at Anthropic, so your second paragraph doesn’t give me much comfort.
I don’t understand your sentence/reasoning here. Naively this should strengthen ofer’s claim, not weaken it.
Why? The less scrupulous one finds Anthropic in their reasoning, the less weight a claim that Wuhan virologists are ‘not much less scrupulous’ carries.
Strong disagree. A bioweapons lab working in secret on gain of function research for a somewhat belligerent despotic government, which denies everything after an accidental release is nowhere near any model I have of ‘scrupulous altruism’.
Ironically, the person I mentioned in my previous comment is one of the main players at Anthropic, so your second paragraph doesn’t give me much comfort.
I think that it’s more likely to be the result of an effort to mitigate potential harm from future pandemics. One piece of evidence that supports this is the grant proposal, which was rejected by DARPA, that is described in this New Yorker article. The grant proposal was co-submitted by the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit which is “dedicated to mitigating the emergence of infectious diseases”, according to the article.
I don’t understand your sentence/reasoning here. Naively this should strengthen ofer’s claim, not weaken it.
Why? The less scrupulous one finds Anthropic in their reasoning, the less weight a claim that Wuhan virologists are ‘not much less scrupulous’ carries.