âI think the argument for extinction level events from artificial pathogens is profoundly weak. These complex systemsâthings like transmissibility, lethalityâthatâs a hard thing to predict, to actually engineer. Just ask yourself how hard is it for record labels to predict which songs are going to be a hit. Until it hits the market, thereâs really no where to know. And thatâs a relatively simple situation, which pathogen is going to be immunologically a hit. You might have dialed in this little detail just a little bit wrongâoh it killed the patient too fast to transmit it.â
This sounded like an improvised answer instead of a succinct summary of the strongest argument against extinction level events being likelyâwhich I think would have been a more ideal thing to include in the video.
In particular, Michaelâs answer leads me to wonder how he knows that future technological developments wouldnât make it much easier to predict which pathogens would âimmunologically be a hitâ and yet the video doesnât tell me.
Or a second objection: Why, given a long enough time horizon, wouldnât the possibility of a bad actor engineering many, many pathogens until one of them finally hits wouldnât be a concern?
Michael Montague, 7:48:
This sounded like an improvised answer instead of a succinct summary of the strongest argument against extinction level events being likelyâwhich I think would have been a more ideal thing to include in the video.
In particular, Michaelâs answer leads me to wonder how he knows that future technological developments wouldnât make it much easier to predict which pathogens would âimmunologically be a hitâ and yet the video doesnât tell me.
Or a second objection: Why, given a long enough time horizon, wouldnât the possibility of a bad actor engineering many, many pathogens until one of them finally hits wouldnât be a concern?