Thanks for writing this! I agree that bioanchors is still worth engaging with and revisiting given how important it has been and is.
I like the overall approach of trying to quantify how much different criticism would update the 1e41 estimate. I don’t feel well-placed to comment on the thermodynamic approach part, but if it works roughly as you outline this seems like an important robustness check for the evolution anchor.
I left a bunch of more minor comments in the report.
Thanks for writing this! I agree that bioanchors is still worth engaging with and revisiting given how important it has been and is.
I like the overall approach of trying to quantify how much different criticism would update the 1e41 estimate. I don’t feel well-placed to comment on the thermodynamic approach part, but if it works roughly as you outline this seems like an important robustness check for the evolution anchor.
I left a bunch of more minor comments in the report.