AI + synthetic biology: What could possibly go wrong?

By Kurt Cobb

Science fiction films are replete with human space travelers visiting far-away planets that have atmospheres suitable for those humans to breathe. Thus, the bother of wearing a space suit or other protective gear is dispensed with, and the encounters with alien races, both hostile and friendly, can proceed without such cumbersome gear mucking up the works.

In addition, these planets often have plants and animals that are strikingly similar to those found on Earth. The problem with this all-too-frequent occurrence in science fiction stories is that even if such planets exist, they would have microorganisms entirely unfamiliar to the human body and thus likely to kill it within days or weeks. Humans would have no immunity and suffer a fate similar to that of the indigenous people of North and South America when Europeans arrived bearing diseases unfamiliar to indigenous immune systems and therefore profoundly deadly. Up to 90 percent of Native Americans perished.

Enter synthetic biology, that is, the engineering of organisms never before seen on Earth. We’ve already seen it in the form of genetically engineered crops such as GMO soybeans and corn. But that is a pale forerunner of what is about to happen: the marriage of artificial intelligence (AI) and synthetic biology. For many years already scientists have been able to create novel sequences of DNA, and they’ve already created dangerous designer viruses for research purposes. I’ve written previously about the possibility of systemic ruin that can flow from these activities. And I’ve voiced concerns about the democratization of genetic engineering through do-it-yourself kits: “Anyone with a credit card and a mailing address can now order their own genetic engineering kit.”

The emerging democratization of genetic engineering will be supercharged as AI is married with synthetic biology. Imagine being able to type in normal English (or your native language) a description of the type of synthetic biological organism or substance that you want and have it produced on the spot. This is not yet possible today, but there is no reason to believe it won’t be in the years to come.

One of the critical problems is described in the previously linked article:

Large language models such as ChatGPT routinely incorporate elements in their output that appear compelling but are factually inaccurate or bizarre: Living people are described as deceased, dates are given wrongly, generative AI images of people develop additional body parts or mangled unreadable signage is created etc. While such hallucinations and black box failures can be problematic enough in the 2 dimensional and electronic domains of text, image, video or sound, they could be highly problematic if incorporated into genomic design of four dimensional living organisms or of active biological proteins released into the body or the biosphere.

I have hammered home again and again in my previous writing that what is called ‘the benign assumption’ prevents most people from recognizing the dangers of new technologies. They simply believe that new technologies will be used with the best of intentions, and, of course, the seeming positive outcomes of such innovations are heavily touted in the media by those who stand to profit handsomely from the unbridled dispersion of the new technology and its products.

Trouble is, this is the same thinking that has brought us the widespread crisis of toxic chemicals everywhere in our food, water, air, and soil. It’s the same thinking that brought us the adoption of social media by nearly everyone with an internet connection in the world. How nice it will be to easily and quickly share our lives with friends and family and make new friends across the globe! How nice it will be to share useful advice from every walk of life instantaneously with millions and even billions at virtually no cost! And, those things happened. Then came the dark side: cellphone addiction, the spread of organized hate and misinformation, the targeting of individuals and institutions for harassment, and the killing of people by mobs because of false accusations of “child trafficking, organ harvesting or other egregious acts.”

The dark side of AI plus synthetic biology is already visible. One focus of synthetic biology is the creation of novel proteins that might be used to treat disease or substitute for proteins we currently get from both plants and animals. But it’s also possible to create toxic proteins or ones that are harmful for other reasons, intentionally or by mistake as described above.

To the extent that novel proteins become additives in our food, they tend to reinforce our dependence on processed foods that are now being widely recognized as a major cause of chronic disease. By definition such proteins cannot be whole foods that our bodies are adapted to thrive on.

These novel substances can also be used to produce substitute foods. One major area of application is allulose, a sugar found in figs, raisins, wheat, maple syrup, and molasses that is not absorbed by the body. But it’s found is such small quantities that it remains expensive. The synthetic biology industry is working to create enzymes that will turn cheap feedstocks like starches and sugar itself into allulose. But, this hardly seems like the healthy eating breakthrough we need to tackle the chronic disease epidemic.

Beyond the health effects and the possibility of systemic ruin because of bad actors, there is the issue of biopiracy. The information on genomes of hundreds of millions of samples of genetic material used to train AI systems comes from around the world. No one has given their permission for these genetic resources to be used by the AI industry exclusively for its own benefit. It’s similar to the mass ripoff of the works of artists, writers, musicians, journalists, software designers, and other creative individuals and organizations by the current AI purveyors who train their text and image generating systems using the work of millions of people without permission. (By the way, the AI industry is being sued for this practice. See here, here and here.)

It should not surprise readers that AI depends on what is essentially open theft of other people’s work. So, it won’t surprise you that the same strategy is being deployed in AI’s marriage with synthetic biology. But there is a big difference between the two areas of exploitation. The first threatens the livelihoods of all creative people whose work is available on the internet (and possibly in easily scannable materials). The uncontrolled dispersion and application of the second threatens us with mass death and even extinction.

The titans of the AI industry and their naive or cynical supporters will tell us that in order to bring the as yet unknown countless benefits of AI combined with synthetic biology to society, governments need to stay out of the way. But anyone with a sense of history knows we’ve been here before countless times. Asbestos, leaded gasoline, chlorofluorocarbons, and Teflon come to mind. Anyone with a sense of history knows better.

Kurt Cobb is a freelance writer and communications consultant who writes frequently about energy and the environment. His work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, Resilience, Common Dreams, Naked Capitalism, Le Monde Diplomatique, Oilprice.com, OilVoice, TalkMarkets, Investing.com, Business Insider and many other places. He is the author of an oil-themed novel entitled Prelude and has a widely followed blog called Resource Insights. He can be contacted at kurtcobb2001@yahoo.com.

Organic & Non-GMO Insights December 2024