Gain of function research is not anywhere near as dangerous as the public believes. In the US, it was very convenient to blame it for the pandemic, even though SARS-CoV-2 is of natural origin and almost certainly spilled over at the Huanan wet market in Wuhan. The threat of viruses comes almost exclusively from nature, which is constantly cooking up new viruses all by itself and exposing people all over the world to them. A few people doing tightly controlled research under high-biocontainment are a drop in the ocean. But their research is the main way we can prepare to deal with future pandemics, not to mention understanding the usual viruses that already afflict humanity.
* pointed out how high-biocontainment is the key here, which obviously wasn't present in this case (and I'd say the vibes for AI research in general are that it's not high-containment)
* correctly argued that AI research is definitely worth doing and holy shit we need to work on alignment
That's an interesting take in 2026, because what I'd read said that SARS_CoV-2 essentially could not have come from a natural origin. They were saying that it was a descendant of a previously know variant, but with a degree of variance that greatly exceeded known rates of natural divergence. Can you share more recent studies refuting that?
SARS-CoV-2 is not descended from any previously known variant. In fact, since the pandemic started, closer cousins of SARS-CoV-2 have been found in the wild in Laos.
The evidence points very strongly to the initial outbreak having been at the Huanan wet market in Wuhan, not anywhere near the lab. All the early cases were near the market, and SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in the wild animal stalls afterwards.
The beginnings of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak actually look exactly like the beginnings of the original SARS outbreak - an initial outbreak in a wet market that sells wild animals in a major city.
Wow. I’d never heard such a powerful and accurate analogy for what we’re doing.
Gain of function research is not anywhere near as dangerous as the public believes. In the US, it was very convenient to blame it for the pandemic, even though SARS-CoV-2 is of natural origin and almost certainly spilled over at the Huanan wet market in Wuhan. The threat of viruses comes almost exclusively from nature, which is constantly cooking up new viruses all by itself and exposing people all over the world to them. A few people doing tightly controlled research under high-biocontainment are a drop in the ocean. But their research is the main way we can prepare to deal with future pandemics, not to mention understanding the usual viruses that already afflict humanity.
I think your reply did a couple things:
* strengthened the point of the GoF comment
* pointed out how high-biocontainment is the key here, which obviously wasn't present in this case (and I'd say the vibes for AI research in general are that it's not high-containment)
* correctly argued that AI research is definitely worth doing and holy shit we need to work on alignment
That's an interesting take in 2026, because what I'd read said that SARS_CoV-2 essentially could not have come from a natural origin. They were saying that it was a descendant of a previously know variant, but with a degree of variance that greatly exceeded known rates of natural divergence. Can you share more recent studies refuting that?
Where did you read that?
SARS-CoV-2 is not descended from any previously known variant. In fact, since the pandemic started, closer cousins of SARS-CoV-2 have been found in the wild in Laos.
The evidence points very strongly to the initial outbreak having been at the Huanan wet market in Wuhan, not anywhere near the lab. All the early cases were near the market, and SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in the wild animal stalls afterwards.
The beginnings of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak actually look exactly like the beginnings of the original SARS outbreak - an initial outbreak in a wet market that sells wild animals in a major city.