Biorisk is an Unhelpful Analogy for AI Risk

"Immunology" and "well-understood" are two phrases I am not used to seeing in close proximity to each other. I think with an "increasingly" in between it's technically true - the field has any model at all now, and that wasn't true in the past, and by that token the well-understoodness is increasing.

But that sentence could also be iterpreted as saying that the field is well-understood now, and is becoming even better understood as time passes. And I think you'd probably struggle to find an immunologist who would describe their field as "well-understood".

My experience has been that for most basic practical questions the answer is "it depends", and, upon closet examination, "it depends on some stuff that nobody currently knows". Now that was more than 10 years ago, so maybe the field has matured a lot since then. But concretely, I expect if you were to go up to an immunologist and say "I'm developing a novel peptide vaccine from the specifc abc surface protein of the specific xyz virus. Can you tell me whether this will trigger an autoimmune response due to cross-reactivity" the answer is going to be something more along the lines of "lol no, run in vitro tests followed by trials (you fool!)" and less along the lines of "sure, just plug it in to this off-the-shelf software".

This is an 800-word blog post, not 5 words. There’s plenty of room for nuance.

The way it stands right now, the post is supporting conversations like:

Person A: It’s not inconceivable that the world might wildly under-invest in societal resilience against catastrophic risks even after a “warning shot” for AI. Like for example, look at the case of bio-risks—COVID just happened, so the costs of novel pandemics are right now extremely salient to everyone on Earth, and yet, (…etc.).

Person B: You idiot, bio-risks are not at all analogous to AI. Look at this blog post by David Manheim explaining why.

Or:

Person B: All technology is always good, and its consequences are always good, and spreading knowledge is always good. So let’s make open-source ASI asap.

Person A [LW(p) · GW(p)]: If I hypothetically found a recipe that allowed anyone to make a novel pandemic using widely-available equipment, and then I posted it on my blog along with clearly-illustrated step-by-step instructions, and took out a billboard out in Times Square directing people to the blog post, would you view my actions as praiseworthy? What would you expect to happen in the months after I did that?

Person B: You idiot, bio-risks are not at all analogous to AI. Look at this blog post by David Manheim explaining why.

Is this what you want? I.e., are you on the side of Person B in both these cases?

This book argues (convincingly IMO) that it’s impossible to communicate, or even think, anything whatsoever, without the use of analogies.

• If you say “AI runs on computer chips”, then the listener will parse those words by conjuring up their previous distilled experience of things-that-run-on-computer-chips, and that previous experience will be helpful in some ways and misleading in other ways.
• If you say “AI is a system that…” then the listener will parse those words by conjuring up their previous distilled experience of so-called “systems”, and that previous experience will be helpful in some ways and misleading in other ways.

Etc. Right?

If you show me an introduction to AI risk for amateurs that you endorse, then I will point out the “rhetorical shortcuts that imply wrong and misleading things” that it contains—in the sense that it will have analogies between powerful AI and things-that-are-not-powerful-AI, and those analogies will be misleading in some ways (when stripped from their context and taken too far). This is impossible to avoid.

Anyway, if someone says:

When it comes to governing technology, there are some areas, like inventing new programming languages, where it’s awesome for millions of hobbyists to be freely messing around; and there are other areas, like inventing new viruses, or inventing new uranium enrichment techniques, where we definitely don’t want millions of hobbyists to be freely messing around, but instead we want to be thinking hard about regulation and secrecy. Let me explain why AI belongs in the latter category…

…then I think that’s a fine thing to say. It’s not a rhetorical shortcut, rather it’s a way to explain what you’re saying, pedagogically, by connecting it to the listener’s existing knowledge and mental models.