All our orgs have openings and if you also could consider working for organizations such as the UK AISI team and other independent organizations that are assessing these models. It's a critical field and there is a need for motivated folks.
“Unlike the chemical or nuclear weapons regimes, the [Biological Weapons Convention] lacks both a system to verify states' compliance with the treaty and a separate international organization to support the convention's effective implementation” [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention
https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/weapons-mass-destr...
You can read more about the efforts for disarmament there.
Biological weapons compliance is entirely voluntary. We don’t have international monitors watching America and Russia’s smallpox stockpiles. That’s left to each nation.
There are efforts at estabilishing it though. And it's hard and expensive for wet labs, but it could be much simpler for things like simulating biological pathways.
One could also see your response as "other nations are developing threats, we should race", which I personally think is misguided.
Instead of these petty armchair discussions, we should instead focus on being more serious about it.
Or Google when they fired Timnit?
I get your sentiment of "why you gotta bring down this good thing" but the answer to your actual question is battle scars from the constant barrage of hostile lies and whitewashing we are subject to. It's kind of absurd (and mildly irresponsible) to think "THIS time will be the time things only go well and nobody uses the new thing for something I don't want".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Virus_...
The only thing to be said about it that resonates with what I'm concerned with is that anyone that is good in the head wants better international oversight on potential bioweapons development.
I do not endorse the view that covid was engineered. Also, I consider it to be unrelated to what I am concerned about, and I will kindly explain it to you:
Traditional labs work with the wet stuff. And there are a lot of safeguards (the levels you mentioned didn't came out of thin air). Of course I am in favor of enforcing the existing safeguards to the most ethical levels possible.
However, when I say that I am concerned about AI being used to circumvent international agreements, I am talking about loopholes that could allow progress in the development of bioweapons without the use of wet labs. For example, by carefully weaving around international rules and doing the development using simulations, which can bypass outdated assumptions that didn't foresaw that this could be possible when they were conceived.
This is not new. For example, many people were concerned about research on fusion energy related to compressing fuel pellets, which could be seen as a way of weaving around international treatises on the development of precursor components to more powerful nuclear weapons (better triggers, smaller warheads, all kinds of nasty things).
Covid development in Wuhan was exactly a careful weaving - by means of laundering through EcoHealth - around the official rule of "no such dangerous GoF research on US soil". Whether such things weaved away offshore or into virtual space is just minor detail of implementation.