• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Master AI (Artificial Intelligence) Discussion/News Thread

Mods may delete this if they think it is too political.
Sadly, that is a great read. Thank you.

The article's main character Zhu states:
"It is hard, in the current AI race, to separate out purely intellectual inquiry from questions of geopolitics."
You are not alone!;)
 
There is a whole field of synthetic biology which to my knowledge has not been successful. Those are to build a minimum viable bacteria from scratch.

This project, to build a bacteriophage is much simpler. They can be a great therapy, but there is not much interest in the US because they can't be patented.

NEWS
  • 19 September 2025

World's first AI-designed viruses a step towards AI-generated life​

Scientists used AI to write coherent viral genomes, using them to synthesize bacteriophages capable of killing resistant strains of bacteria.
By

A colour enhanced transmission electron micrograph showing a section of an E. coli B cell swarmed in T2 phages.

AI-designed bacteriophages were capable of infecting and killing host bacteria. Credit: Lee D. Simon/Science Photo Library
Scientists have created the first ever viruses designed by artificial intelligence (AI), and they’re capable of hunting down and killing strains of Escherichia coli (E. coli).
“This is the first time AI systems are able to write coherent genome-scale sequences”, says Brian Hie, a computational biologist at Stanford University, California. “The next step is AI-generated life”, says Hie, but his colleague Samuel King adds that “a lot of experimental advances need to occur in order to design an entire living organism”.
The study, by Hie, King and colleagues, was posted on the preprint server bioRxiv on 17 September<a href="https://archive.is/Sy0LV/again?url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03055-y#ref-CR1">1</a> and is not yet peer reviewed, but the authors say that it shows the potential of AI to design biotechnological tools and therapies for treating bacterial infections. “Hopefully, a strategy like this can complement existing phage-therapy strategies and someday augment the therapeutics [to] target pathogens of concern,” says Hie.

Genomes from the computer​

AI models have already been used to generate DNA sequences, single proteins and multi-component complexes<a href="https://archive.is/Sy0LV/again?url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03055-y#ref-CR2">2</a>. But designing a whole genome is much more challenging owing to complex interactions between genes and gene replication and regulation processes. These AI systems are now capable of helping scientists to manipulate highly intricate biological systems, such as whole genomes, says Hie. “There are many important biological functions that you can only access if you’re able to design complete genomes.”
To design the viral genomes, the researchers used Evo 1 and Evo 2, AI models that analyse and generate DNA, RNA and protein sequences. First, they needed a design template, which is a starting sequence that guides the AI model to generate a genome with desired characteristics. They chose ΦX174, a simple single-stranded DNA virus that contains 5,386 nucleotides in 11 genes, and all the genetic elements required to infect hosts and replicate inside them.
The Evo models had already been trained on more than 2 million phage genomes, but the researchers further trained the models — using a method called supervised learning — to generate ΦX174-like viral genomes with the specific function of infecting E.coli strains, especially those resistant to antibiotics.
Related
Five ways science is tackling the antibiotic resistance crisis
The researchers evaluated thousands of AI-generated sequences and narrowed their search down to 302 viable bacteriophages. Most candidates shared more than 40% nucleotide identity with ΦX174, but some had completely different coding sequences. The researchers synthesized DNA from the AI-designed genomes and inserted them into host bacteria to grow phages. These phages were then experimentally tested to see whether they could infect and kill E.coli.
Some 16 of the 302 AI-designed bacteriophage showed host specificity for E. coli and could infect the bacteria. The researchers found that combinations of AI-designed phages could infect and kill three different E. coli strains, which the wild-type ΦX174 was unable to do.
“It was quite a surprising result that was really exciting for us because it shows that this method might potentially be very useful for therapeutics”, says King.

Biosafety concerns​

“This study provides a compelling case study of what is possible today and sets the stage for more-ambitious applications in the future,” says Peter Koo, a computational biologist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Laurel Hollow, New York. “It provides a spotlight for an interesting application domain,” he adds.
Koo says that the Evo model alone is not yet sufficient to design and generate viruses without the intervention, guidance and filtering from the team. “But I think as an overall system, with all the filters in place and the whole system and pipeline they laid out, it shows that it could possibly be an approach that can lead to functional genomes,” he adds.
Related
Self-organizing multicellular structures designed using synthetic biology
There are ethical concerns of AIs being used to design viruses that can harm humans. But Kerstin Göpfrich, a biophysicist and synthetic biologist at Heidelberg University in Germany, says that this problem — known as the dual-use dilemma — is not unique to AI, but is always a concern in biology. “I think in research in general you always have a dual-use dilemma. There’s nothing specific about AI, and you can always use progress for the better or for the worse,” she says.
The authors addressed biosafety concerns in the manuscript. They say that they excluded viruses that affect eukaryotes, including humans, from the Evo models’ training data. The ΦX174 phage and E. coli host systems they studied were also non-pathogenic and have ”a long history of safe use in molecular-biology research”, the researchers write in the study.
The researchers hope that their approach could be used to safely generate AI-designed viruses that treat various diseases and public-health issues, including the growing problem of bacterial resistance.
“I think this will definitely be a growing field and I’m super excited about it”, Göpfrich says.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-03055-y

References​

  1. 1.
    King, S. H. et al. preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.12.675911 (2025).
  2. 2.
    Madani, A. et al. Nature Biotechnol. 41, 1099–1106 (2023).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
 
Indeed. I find it odd that the whole weaponisation aspect of AI seems to be all but ignored.
Probably because no one really wants, or knows how to regulate/contain it.

Anyone know if there is actually any way of preventing "bad actors", (no not Dolph Lundgren), from making nasty toxins etc with AI?

The scary bit for me is that, unlike nuclear weapons, I don't think there's the need for particularly difficult, high tech manufacturing processes.

The glass half full part of me says: Hell, ignore it. There's sweet FA that can be done about it anyway...
And keep the faith/hope that AI will be simultaneously utilised in wonderful innovative ways within medicine. For as yet unforseen cures and numerous seemingly miraculous advancements...

Here's hoping.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KLi
Indeed. I find it odd that the whole weaponisation aspect of AI seems to be all but ignored.
Probably because no one really wants, or knows how to regulate/contain it.
It would need some international agreement like the Geneva Conventions, but given there have so far been no consequences for countries violating those we already have (targetting hospitals etc.) I doubt it would have much effect even if they could be agreed. Meanwhile we get to watch while at least 3 countries (probably more by proxy) continue to develop their use in live conflict. If they're going to be used anyway then nobody wants to get left behind.
 
All able to do it will do it, because they fall behind their adversaries if they don't.
This is the logic of homo "sapiens"...
 
OK. It's the virus/neurotoxins bit I find scary.

Bad enough that, as per, the usual suspects/"superpowers", will most likely be testing this stuff...
Super scary that potentially any number of tech savvy, unhinged peeps around the world with a basic laptop can do much the same, I would suggest.

Again... What could possibly go wrong.
(Ho hum.)
 
OK. It's the virus/neurotoxins bit I find scary.

Bad enough that, as per, the usual suspects/"superpowers", will most likely be testing this stuff...
Super scary that potentially any number of tech savvy, unhinged peeps around the world with a basic laptop can do much the same, I would suggest.

Again... What could possibly go wrong.
(Ho hum.)
Yes, because "Volks"AI is already here, with cheap(ish) cards.
Most "crazies" wil be too "lame" to do anything really sinister, but not all...
 
Damn. I hope you are right.

(The glass is half full.)
 
Last edited:
Indeed. I find it odd that the whole weaponisation aspect of AI seems to be all but ignored.
Probably because no one really wants, or knows how to regulate/contain it.

Anyone know if there is actually any way of preventing "bad actors", (no not Dolph Lundgren), from making nasty toxins etc with AI?

The scary bit for me is that, unlike nuclear weapons, I don't think there's the need for particularly difficult, high tech manufacturing processes.

The glass half full part of me says: Hell, ignore it. There's sweet FA that can be done about it anyway...
And keep the faith/hope that AI will be simultaneously utilised in wonderful innovative ways within medicine. For as yet unforseen cures and numerous seemingly miraculous advancements...

Here's hoping.
To chemical and biological weapons, for armies, they are a bad weapon because it is difficult for the attacker to keep from poisoning or infecting themselves. That resulted in a treaty that is largely followed.
 
Indeed. But I am more worried about unhinged terrorist organisations, like ISIS.
I reckon the only thing that keeps them from using this stuff, (plus nukes) is the fact they ain't got em. Hopefully I'm wrong. My 2c

Apologies... realise that this is a pretty grim side track.

Anyhoo enough glass half empty, negative stuff for me now. I'm out.

(Gotta keep head above water. Positive music time for me now!)
 
Last edited:
What could possibly go wrong?
Rick “a little terrified” Denney
From the But Wait, There is More (BWTiM) department:
According to the DHS FY 2026 budget, DHS/CWMD is being dismantled in its entirety, with all 286 positions and $409.4 million in funding being reassigned, and no funds requested for FY 2026 under CWMD's former accounts [under EO14110].
With DHS/CWMD's dissolution and no clear single agency taking comprehensive responsibility for AI-enabled biological threats, there appears to be a dangerous gap in federal oversight at precisely the time when such threats may be increasing.
I just summarized what an AI would blabber about.
Sorry! :facepalm:
 
The post about creating a lethal virus spooked me. Like all technological innovation, someone will find way to weaponize it. This could be way more powerful than the Wuhan lab that leaked COVID.

What are the cool headed policy makers doing to protect us humans?

On the other hand I have been having an interesting back and forward with OpenAi about my upcoming headphone upgrade.
The answers are very detailed, with credibility reinforced by the web hyperlinks given as references.

It has learned about my playback equipment, hearing limitations, and music tastes, and serves up answers to my queries accordingly.
It even offers me the suggested position of the knobs on my Schiit Loki+ to suit my tuning preferences.
 
Science fiction has been devoted to answering the what could possibly go wrong question forever, but the scientists themselves seem to be often immune to the ontological implications of that.

Rick “actually working in an AI direction these days” Denney
 
Notice that access to AI is almost always free and that reminds us of the dawn of new millennia saying, "If the app is free, you are the product". LLMs are already exploiting us and creating proprietary new data bases inaccessible to anyone but their proprietors.
 
Back
Top Bottom