The common analogy of AI to electricity is dangerously rosy. AI is more like fire: a transformative tool that, if mismanaged or weaponized, can spread uncontrollably with devastating consequences. This mental model better prepares us for AI's inherent risks and accelerating power.

A key threshold in AI-driven hacking has been crossed. Models can now autonomously chain multiple, distinct vulnerabilities together to execute complex, multi-step attacks—a capability they lacked just months ago. This significantly increases their potential as offensive cyber weapons.

Models designed to predict and screen out compounds toxic to human cells have a serious dual-use problem. A malicious actor could repurpose the exact same technology to search for or design novel, highly toxic molecules for which no countermeasures exist, a risk the researchers initially overlooked.

Powerful AI models for biology exist, but the industry lacks a breakthrough user interface—a "ChatGPT for science"—that makes them accessible, trustworthy, and integrated into wet lab scientists' workflows. This adoption and translation problem is the biggest hurdle, not the raw capability of the AI models themselves.

Defenders of AI models are "fighting against infinity" because as model capabilities and complexity grow, the potential attack surface area expands faster than it can be secured. This gives attackers a persistent upper hand in the cat-and-mouse game of AI security.

The justification for accelerating AI development to beat China is logically flawed. It assumes the victor wields a controllable tool. In reality, both nations are racing to build the same uncontrollable AI, making the race itself, not the competitor, the primary existential threat.

The same governments pushing AI competition for a strategic edge may be forced into cooperation. As AI democratizes access to catastrophic weapons (CBRN), the national security risk will become so great that even rival superpowers will have a mutual incentive to create verifiable safety treaties.

The public narrative about AI-driven cyberattacks misses the real threat. According to Method Security's CEO, sophisticated adversaries aren't using off-the-shelf models like Claude. They are developing and deploying their own superior, untraceable AI models, making defense significantly more challenging than is commonly understood.

Other scientific fields operate under a "precautionary principle," avoiding experiments with even a small chance of catastrophic outcomes (e.g., creating dangerous new lifeforms). The AI industry, however, proceeds with what Bengio calls "crazy risks," ignoring this fundamental safety doctrine.