What safety evaluation? What safety hardening? They already evaluated it and found it to be highly capable at exploiting security vulnerabilities. So we know it is not "safe", and they don't seem to plan to do anything against it. What could be more dangerous than hacking? Biological weapons research? I don't think Chinese labs are doing anything against this either.
Data and content related to "biological weapons" already exist on the internet, in books, etc. The real issue is access to facilities and tools. There are models that help researchers, but they are not LLMs, rather they are models trained specifically on biological data (like AlphaFold).
Cybersecurity is basically used like a dog whistle pioneered by Anthropic to achieve regulatory capture. Otherwise, the widespread availability of good tooling for security analysis would eliminate more of these cyber threats, rather than gatekeeping them for a few private companies.
No, I think tools are easy to come by (unlike in nuclear research), the real issue is the know-how to create biological weapons, which you can't easily get out of books, but much more easily out of an amoral LLM.
> amoral LLM
Are you a Lesswrong member? What makes Anthropic moral when their priority is automating people out of jobs instead of developing better medicine or advancing healthcare?
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/monograph/9780122208515/b...