This project is still in the early stages, and I have not yet developed a concrete hypothesis about what would constitute “good guidelines that a) reduce GCBR and b) preprint servers will approve of.” arXiv and other servers already use humans to do some basic vetting, so expanding their mandate to cover dual use issues is an option, but there may be cheaper things (like researcher self-certification) to try first.
Once I have a hypothesis that other EA biosecurity people agree is worth testing, the next step is getting in touch with preprint server administrators and users to see what they think. This should help answer the other questions you raise.
EDIT: I am no longer leading this project, and after talking to a few biosecurity professionals, the project is on hold.
So the vetting will be done by humans? Is this sustainable in the long term? E.g. how quickly does the number of submissions grow?
I would say two things about this.
This project is still in the early stages, and I have not yet developed a concrete hypothesis about what would constitute “good guidelines that a) reduce GCBR and b) preprint servers will approve of.” arXiv and other servers already use humans to do some basic vetting, so expanding their mandate to cover dual use issues is an option, but there may be cheaper things (like researcher self-certification) to try first.
Once I have a hypothesis that other EA biosecurity people agree is worth testing, the next step is getting in touch with preprint server administrators and users to see what they think. This should help answer the other questions you raise.
EDIT: I am no longer leading this project, and after talking to a few biosecurity professionals, the project is on hold.
I don’t know, I assume it’s done by humans.
My priors are:
Do something manually before automating it
Talk to the users (medXiv, bioXiv) about their situation before picking a solution
At some point this will be at least somewhat automated, reducing at least most of the human work