There's a bit of a difference between producing the laptop that can connect to the internet and creating a web site with information on how to kill someone.

Step 1. Buy a gun and bullets Step 2. Shoot someone

Oh no, now this website has information on how to kill someone.

I'm not a bioweapons expert, but I think there's a lot of equipment and materials required to build a bioweapon of sufficient lethality and efficacy.

Look at anthrax for an example of a bioweapon with only one of those.

Go to a beauty spa and take their supply of Botox. Boom incredibly toxic bioweapon. Or grow some Castor plants, the beans contain ricin.

I think when most people talk about a bioweapon to be concerned about they mean something that can be deployed against a large number of people.

IDK much about Botox as a weapon, but can you use it to deploy broadly? With ricin, that's just another poison, so how's that better than rat poison?

It is more just that there are a wide variety of existing ways available to harm or kill the population. No need to invoke the specter that AI magic is going to engineer some super bug. Plenty of virulent pathogens already around.

You could trivially cause enormous harm by sabotaging electrical distribution, water treatment, hospitals, airports, etc. Go to any food manufacturer/distributor and contaminate the products with listeria or such.

You can get PTFE spray in any hardware store.

> Oh no, now this website has information on how to kill someone.

That's just a bad faith response.

> I'm not a bioweapons expert

That's the whole point, innit? You don't know how to do, so you can't. Publishing functioning recipes using easily accessed materials would provide you and countless others with a bio-weapon. Thus the publication is the problem, not the tech stack (internet, pcs, servers, etc.).

Therefore, OpenAI publishing risky information is equally at fault.