Sir Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5, raised concerns over the use of AI by hostile groups.
Experts say the technology could help terrorists and nation states with production but that significant hurdles remain In his annual speech on threats to the nation, Sir Ken McCallum, the head of the UK’s intelligence service, MI5, warned that AI has the potential to “change the stakes” on existing and even new bioweapons.
Here we look at how AI might help in the development of bioweapons and the hurdles that remain.
How could AI help people make bioweapons?
It depends on who wants to make them.
One risk is the rogue, unskilled bad actor or terrorist group that works from a garage laboratory.
AI chatbots could help them skill up, by compiling relevant information, planning experiments and troubleshooting problems.
It’s likely the work would focus on using existing pathogens and toxins.
The other risk comes from well-resourced organisations and nation states that have plenty of skilled scientists, high containment laboratories and all of the equipment and reagents needed to work on bioweapons safely.
AI tools could help researchers identify genetic tweaks to make existing pathogens more lethal, for example.
This is the more immediate concern, according to Dr Filippa Lentzos, a reader in science and international security at King’s College London.
“Here, AI does not remove the need for expertise, it amplifies expertise that is already there,” she says.
A more distant risk comes from highly skilled groups using AI to design completely new pathogens and toxins that are resistant to drugs or have no antidotes.
Have people tried using AI to make bioweapons?
Last year, police in India uncovered a suspected bioterrorism plot in which a doctor and several others drew on AI chatbot queries and AI-driven search, allegedly to help them make ricin, a deadly toxin, using kitchen tools.
It is unclear whether the AI’s responses helped, but other accounts suggest the tools can provide relevant and dangerous information.
The AI company Anthropic raised further concerns in September when it reported five cases of scientists in unnamed countries trying to use its Claude chatbot for what may have been dangerous work on viruses or toxins.
One red flag, the company said, was that after being blocked, the scientists found workarounds.
