← All IntelClip / AI ToolsBiosecurity red-teaming reveals dangerous blind spot
From Verifiable Environments for AI in Biology — Kenny Workman, LatchBio · ≈15:44
“I don't know if you guys have been hearing uh fuzzles kind of suck in biology right now.”
“We found that the routine tasks like drastic get drastic used drastically more frequently than the red team tasks, which is uh not great.”
What’s in it
- Exposes a biosecurity red-team test hidden inside routine science questions
- Shows how a 'glowing protein' request can secretly ask for a toxin
- Flags a safety gap: harmful bio-tasks slip through nearly as often as benign ones
Clip transcript
with American Wetware and a surveillance company called Aquid. Um some new work that was first released this morning. I don't know if you guys have been hearing uh fuzzles kind of suck in biology right now. If you ask Fable basic questions about like mitochondria, it'll won't answer. It's kind of stupid. So, I mean this is just like an evaluation problem. There's a lot There's a lot more nuance to this, but I just use that cuz people tend to recognize it. Uh where we build routine tasks that simulate the kinds of things a scientist would ask for, and then more sinister red team tasks, which are supposed to look innocuous but have some structure that is bad, like, "Hey, I want to clone a gene into a bacteria, and I'm telling you it's GFP." It's like a glowing protein, but in reality it's like a toxin um or it could be used to bootstrap a virus. We found that the routine tasks like drastic get drastic used drastically more frequently than the red team tasks, which is uh not great. Um we're aggregating a lot of these
Comments
Checking sign-in…
Loading comments…