Jen Roberts

As many of my readers know, one of the reasons I left the FT in 2022 is because I was very disappointed with their reluctance to take the lab leak hypothesis seriously. When they eventually started an investigation, largely because I had been pestering about it vocally, I was put on the loosely configured team that was given an internal blessing to look into the theory (even tho technically, as ft Alphaville editor, it was far from my beat). This, however, isn’t a post about the FT or the issues I had with how that evolved. I’m only mentioning this to establish my authority for opining on this matter. I spent a good six months looking exclusively into the story with the full weight of the FT name behind me. That gave me about as much access as any journalist can get. It also led to the equivalent of an accelerated and intensive education in the topic of biological weapons and the geopolitical statecraft and history pertaining to them. Often aided by expert names in the field. That’s why when I see Anthropic announcing they already have wet labs to conduct biological l-virus-related experiments it makes me deeply concerned. (Especially in the context of their other communications about pacing.) We need to know way more about these wet labs and under whose authority and supervision they are operating. As we learned from COVID, all such experiments are ultimately dual use. Furthermore, there is a reason why humanity sought to create a biological weapons convention. It was the microbiology world’s equivalent of pacing its frontier. Unfortunately, that agreement failed to reassure anybody that pacing is possible. The convention as it exists is toothless, not least because it lacks any mutual inspections authority. It also soon became apparent that states did not have a monopoly control over the technologies. Nobody could be sure what was happening in private labs or even domestic garages, or whether private sector programmes weren’t really dual use, or secretly running off the books state sponsored biological weapons programmes. I already explained in the Telegraph yesterday that I believe the AI pacing demand is mostly an attempt to hold the global economy hostage. The labs think they are now too big to fail, and are therefore entitled to an antitrust waiver for systemic security purposes. However, it’s hard not to interpret the reveal about biolabs as a signal that they’re not just TOO BIG TO FAIL… but also TOO DANGEROUS TO FAIL. Aka handover the money or else. This is important because even four years ago (pre ChatGPT) it was deemed entirely conceivable that AI could aid in the creation of DNA specific viruses and vaccines. Imagine that power in the hands of a single AI lab. In the mythological and legendary tradition we might have called such things potions, hexes or curses and their equivalent counterspells talismans, amulets or antidotes. That’s why, more broadly, in the microbiology field it is well understood that offence is usually the best defence. This is why biolabs and preparedness programmes exist in the first place - despite all the leak risks! Most of the scientists I spoke with shared the view that since the technology is out there, you can’t easily put the genie back in the bottle. The best way to ward off malevolent viruses is with the technological capacity to create vaccines that can pre inoculate entire populations. An endless array of white magic to ward off the equivalent black magic. For us mortals, therefore, it’s all about figuring out who really has our back. Unfortunately, this isn’t always as easy as it sounds! As all our greatest myths warn us, white wizards can be corrupted by dark malevolent forces and those who practice the dark arts can sometimes have a change of heart. In the end it comes down to who the true philanthropists and misanthropes are. Which, in turn, makes it all about game theory.

The exciting thing about Burnham potentially introducing a land tax is that we would have to do a very detailed survey of who owns all the land in the UK, and given that about 17% of the country is in the hands of unknown entities that could end up being… how should I put it? Revolutionary? theguardian.com/books/2019/a…