This is genuinely incredibly impressive — a proof point that a small, dedicated team can create meaningful x-risk reduction impact through “policy” (e.g. if scientific consensus is a precursor to policy action). If so, subsequent progress here may also be relatively cost-effective: compared to stockpiles or hard infrastructure, the marginal public spend to adopt guidance and implement early measures could be low.
Also: I think this is extra impressive because my (anecdotal) experience is that many people in mainstream bio who hear “mirror bio” dismiss it as a non-issue — so shifting scientific consensus here seems like a significant achievement.
This is genuinely incredibly impressive — a proof point that a small, dedicated team can create meaningful x-risk reduction impact through “policy” (e.g. if scientific consensus is a precursor to policy action). If so, subsequent progress here may also be relatively cost-effective: compared to stockpiles or hard infrastructure, the marginal public spend to adopt guidance and implement early measures could be low.
Also: I think this is extra impressive because my (anecdotal) experience is that many people in mainstream bio who hear “mirror bio” dismiss it as a non-issue — so shifting scientific consensus here seems like a significant achievement.