Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

The Reality of AI and Biorisk

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2412.01946 v3 pith:2YWJOFD3 submitted 2024-12-02 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords bioriskmodelsincreasemodelthreatavailablebiologicalexisting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

To accurately and confidently answer the question 'could an AI model or system increase biorisk', it is necessary to have both a sound theoretical threat model for how AI models or systems could increase biorisk and a robust method for testing that threat model. This paper provides an analysis of existing available research surrounding two AI and biorisk threat models: 1) access to information and planning via large language models (LLMs), and 2) the use of AI-enabled biological tools (BTs) in synthesizing novel biological artifacts. We find that existing studies around AI-related biorisk are nascent, often speculative in nature, or limited in terms of their methodological maturity and transparency. The available literature suggests that current LLMs and BTs do not pose an immediate risk, and more work is needed to develop rigorous approaches to understanding how future models could increase biorisks. We end with recommendations about how empirical work can be expanded to more precisely target biorisk and ensure rigor and validity of findings.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Preliminary suggestions for rigorous GPAI model evaluations

    cs.CY 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A RAND team turned a 64-paper literature review into a preliminary best-practice checklist for rigorously evaluating general-purpose AI models.

Pith tools