AI arms race: Anthropic warns of bioweapons threat
Former CIA station chief Dan Hoffman has voiced concerns about the potential for foreign exploitation of artificial intelligence systems. During his analysis of a recent report from Anthropic, he highlighted eight months of thwarted malicious activities aimed at cyberattacks and the development of bioweapons. He stressed the urgency for the U.S. government to take decisive steps to protect its key technical infrastructure.
The U.S. Army has introduced a plan to train soldiers to effectively respond to biological attacks, moving away from the assumption that all threats can be averted. This new initiative incorporates biological warfare scenarios into standard combat training, as advancements in AI and biotechnology raise alarming questions about the kinds of weapons that adversaries might devise soon.
“Can we shield every soldier from every conceivable bio threat? It’s likely not feasible,” Dr. Alison Tamasi, a senior figure at the Army’s Nuclear and Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Agency, told reporters on Monday. “After all, we can’t just place them in a protective bubble,” she added.
This strategy evolves as U.S. authorities are trying to determine whether Russia is maintaining an offensive biological weapons program, following an unexplained death in the country linked to an anti-plague facility, which has reignited debates concerning biological safety and transparency.
Despite the challenges, the Army aims to prepare its forces for engagement in biologically contested environments by 2035. The objective is to shift the mindset of commanders, intelligence officers, and logistics teams towards preparing for biological threats while continuing their core combat missions, rather than primarily viewing outbreaks as medical emergencies.
In fact, a significant aspect of this new approach involves incorporating biological incidents into major Army combat exercises. This adjustment prompts commanders to tackle potential outbreaks while fulfilling their other responsibilities.
For instance, Tamasi detailed a scenario featuring a simulated norovirus outbreak in a military port. While medical teams would focus on controlling the outbreak, logistics personnel would be tasked with ensuring that essential supplies continued to flow.
This shift reflects a broader change in how the Army perceives biological threats—they are now recognized not just as health issues but as possible interruptions to military operations that leaders need to mitigate effectively.
“We need to ensure our doctrine aligns with this new paradigm,” said Tamasi, highlighting efforts to define how readiness regarding biodefense should be evaluated across the military. The newly implemented plan, signed last week, activates the Army’s updated biodefense strategy approved in September, which aims to prepare soldiers for deployment in environments where biological threats are present by 2035.
The initial two-year phase will concentrate on establishing policies, enhancing coordination among Army divisions, and developing personnel with specialized expertise in biological matters. Future phases are expected to delve into more advanced technology acquisition efforts.
This initiative is coming amidst increasing worries that advancements in artificial intelligence and biotechnology might quicken the emergence of biological dangers. Tamasi referred to these developments as a dual-use challenge, indicating that while they can aid in medical breakthroughs, they can also facilitate the rapid emergence of biological threats.
U.S. officials remain particularly vigilant regarding Russia. Washington has consistently evaluated that Moscow retains an offensive biological weapons program stemming from the Soviet era, despite the country’s commitments under the Biological Weapons Convention.
The U.S. renounced such offensive weapons back in 1969 and is a signatory of the convention, which forbids the creation, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons.
The case of Darya Shipilova, a 28-year-old worker at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute in Siberia, underscores these concerns. She passed away on October 2 after developing acute pneumonia, with early Russian reports suggesting it might be linked to a pneumonic plague infection resulting from a laboratory accident. However, Russian officials rejected these claims, asserting that tests showed no evidence of plague or other high-threat pathogens. The exact cause of her death remains undetermined.
When questioned about how Russia’s biological weapons activities influenced the Army’s strategic planning, Tamasi explained that the approach is based on broad intelligence perspectives rather than targeting a single adversary. “It’s not purely focused on one specific threat actor,” she clarified.
As for insights gained from Russia’s biological weapons program, she noted that the strategy was crafted to address biological threats irrespective of their source—whether they arise from accidental, intentional actions, or even those ultimately deemed not to pose as significant a danger as initially thought. For Army leaders, the urgent focus should be on responding to a potential biological threat and maintaining operational capabilities, instead of fixating on its origin since questions about attribution would involve a broader U.S. government response.
The Army is actively working to gather information from various sources—including environmental monitoring, medical facilities, and intelligence reports—to identify potential biological incidents at an earlier stage. For instance, this could involve wastewater analysis akin to what was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Tamasi. The aim is to provide commanders with a more comprehensive understanding of possible biological threats so they can act swiftly before disruptions escalate.
The Army has also recognized the limitations of solely regarding biological threats as public health emergencies, especially highlighted during the pandemic. As such, officials are urging military leaders across all sectors to integrate these risks into their operational planning proactively.
Furthermore, the new strategy also considers misinformation an operational challenge, particularly when it comes to decisions about vaccinations, protective measures, and communications during a biological incident. The Army has initiated biodefense seminars designed for senior leaders, with an emphasis on conveying “ground truth” information surrounding biological threats.
In the long run, the goal is to enhance soldiers’ readiness to carry on with their duties in the face of biological attacks. Tamasi indicated that showing that biological threats wouldn’t necessarily halt American operations might deter adversaries from employing such weapons in the first place.
