Claim and evidence Close ×
Sandbrink's preprint (arXiv v1, 24 June 2023) states that biological design tools will expand the capabilities of sophisticated actors, and proposes interventions to deter biological misuse by such actors. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Subject version arXiv v1 (24 June 2023) · Published 2023-06-24 · Effective date not established · Revised 2023-12-23 Date 2023-06-24 · publication Role Context Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Scope of the passage States the point as a contrast with the barrier-lowering effect it attributes to language models. Missing element The passage states that design tools expand the capabilities of sophisticated actors and proposes interventions aimed at them; it does not state that assessment must cover actors who already hold relevant skills, which is the proposition’s criterion. Scope and limits The record documents what version 1 of this preprint states; it is not evidence that the proposition is true and implies no influence between texts. It holds no earliest-located role: the passage does not meet the proposition’s criterion. Downgraded at admission from the role the pack gave it, on the cross-family check of 2026-10-30: the passage does not meet the proposition’s criterion as worded. The record keeps the passage and says what it lacks. (item 102).
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
Artificial intelligence and biological misuse: Differentiating risks of language models and biological design tools ↗ arXiv (preprint, Jonas B. Sandbrink, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford) · Publication date unknown
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “In contrast, BDTs will expand the capabilities of sophisticated actors.” Location in source Abstract, PDF p. 1
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-30
Source details and check notes Authors arXiv (preprint, Jonas B. Sandbrink, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford) Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 (SHA-256 1ab85d8647f2d23079d35eb8162b70b3f970094106808ef4291fb89615db0afa). arXiv v1 of 24 June 2023 (the article was revised to v8 on 23 December 2023; this record cites v1 only) Retrieved again at admission on 2026-10-30 (SHA-256 1ab85d8647f2d23079d35eb8162b70b3f970094106808ef4291fb89615db0afa, the same bytes). Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-28 Language English (en) Attribution arXiv (preprint, Jonas B. Sandbrink, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford), “Artificial intelligence and biological misuse: Differentiating risks of language models and biological design tools”. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage, AI and biosecurity (research/ai-bio). The quotation (10 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 and again at admission on 2026-10-30, in a fresh retrieval whose SHA-256 equals the pack’s. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. The text is the primary source for its own statement. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-30, item 102) re-read the record’s sources and found partial support; its corrections were applied at admission. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
Artificial intelligence and biological misuse: Differentiating risks of language models and biological design tools ↗ arXiv (preprint, Jonas B. Sandbrink, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford) · Publication date unknown
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “interventions to deter biological misuse by sophisticated actors” Location in source Abstract, PDF p. 1 (final sentence)
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-30
Source details and check notes Authors arXiv (preprint, Jonas B. Sandbrink, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford) Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 (SHA-256 1ab85d8647f2d23079d35eb8162b70b3f970094106808ef4291fb89615db0afa). arXiv v1 of 24 June 2023 (the article was revised to v8 on 23 December 2023; this record cites v1 only) Retrieved again at admission on 2026-10-30 (SHA-256 1ab85d8647f2d23079d35eb8162b70b3f970094106808ef4291fb89615db0afa, the same bytes). Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-28 Language English (en) Attribution arXiv (preprint, Jonas B. Sandbrink, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford), “Artificial intelligence and biological misuse: Differentiating risks of language models and biological design tools”. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage, AI and biosecurity (research/ai-bio). The quotation (8 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 and again at admission on 2026-10-30, in a fresh retrieval whose SHA-256 equals the pack’s. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. The measure the preprint proposes for that class of actor. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-30, item 102) re-read the record’s sources and found partial support; its corrections were applied at admission. No human editorial review. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. A passage of the document bears on the proposition without meeting its criterion; the record names the missing element. It is not an articulation and implies no influence.
Date. Date of the arXiv v1 submission; only v1 is cited.
Record ID ab-arg-d7-sandbrink-context