Shadowing Practice: AI Designed Viruses That Never Existed Before - Learn English Speaking with Video
Kies een oefenmodus
Elke modus opent een volledig scherm oefenruimte.
141 zinnen
Als zinnen te kort of te lang zijn, klik op Bewerken om ze aan te passen.
1
Antibiotic resistant bacteria killed an estimated 1 .27 million people in 2019.
2
More than HIV slash AIDS or malaria.
3
And what I find really fascinating is that number is projected to keep climbing.
4
In fact, 40 million more deaths by 2050 if nothing changes.
5
Now there are some interesting things happening to hopefully change this.
6
I mean phage therapy it's using viruses to kill specific bacteria instead of broad -spectrum antibiotics.
7
People have been very hopeful about it, but to be frank, it's been slow for decades.
8
And the reason for this is because designing effective phages takes years.
9
But essentially, if a model can generate working candidates in days, that's a real medical breakthrough.
10
But it comes with kind of an unexpected security problem.
11
So let's take a step back here.
12
Scientists have used artificial intelligence to create brand new viruses, 16 of them.
13
Researchers at Stanford University and the Arc Institute say they trained an AI model called Evo on huge amounts of DNA data.
14
Then that information was used to create the new synthetic viruses.
15
On August 5th, a peer -reviewed study by Stanford was released
16
that showed how they trained a model to write DNA the same way, at its core, that GPT writes text.
17
The Stanford -based team is led by Brian He, who's working with the ARC Institute and bioengineering grad student Samuel King.
18
And it was he who built EVO2, which is a genome language model.
19
You can predict the next token, except the tokens are base pairs and the training data is the genetic code of viruses,
20
bacteria, plants and humans.
21
So the team used EVO2 to design candidate genomes for 5X1 74,
22
which is a virus that infects E coli, and the first DNA genome ever fully sequenced.
23
They essentially synthesized close to 300 of the model's designs.
24
Now out of those 300, 16 worked which meant new viruses that don't exist anywhere in nature.
25
I mean, some killing E coli more effectively than the original.
26
Now, the virus itself that was created is harmless.
27
It really only infects E coli.
28
But the paper, the Stanford paper that came out of it,
29
proving this came out to what I found very fascinating and a lot of others did.
30
It was from biosecurity researchers at John Hopkins and they basically call the findings a source of urgent biosafety and biosecurity questions.
31
Yeah, here is the actual technical problem.
32
DNA screening systems catch sequences by matching them against a database of known threats, things that already exist.
33
But this sequence has no match because nothing like it existed before it was created.
34
And to be fair, there's an industry -led screening system already.
35
I mean, the International Gene Synthesis Consortium has more than 40 gene synthesis companies that agreed to a shared screening protocol.
36
And even more than 175 developers of AI biodesign tools have
37
even signed commitments to only use the synthesis providers who follow those standards, which I think is pretty exciting.
38
People are seeing that this could be a real threat and taking action, hopefully ahead of time.
39
But all of that infrastructure really answers one question.
40
Does this sequence look like something we already know is dangerous?
41
Adoption is essentially voluntary and uneven, especially among smaller providers.
42
And none of it was built to catch a sequence that resembles nothing in any database.
43
I mean it's making something that doesn't exist yet.
44
And that's the real hole of Evo 2 exposed.
45
It's a mismatch between the rules that were set in place to catch these things and what something can do,
46
what a generative model can do and now produce something that hasn't existed before.
47
How do we put guardrails for that?
48
Running Evo 2, which by the way is open source right now, at full scale takes some serious hardware easily.
49
It's open source but it probably takes a quarter million dollars or more in compute.
50
It's really out of reach for someone working alone
51
but well within reach for a university lab or a startup
52
or a state program and
53
that barrier tends to drop over time
54
now one caveat worth knowing evo2 in its raw form couldn't reliably design a specific phage like phi x1 74.
55
it really doesn't roll off the tongue easy
56
it couldn't design one of those on its own
57
it has to take an extra step supervised to narrow the model's focus on that phage family.
58
So this was a deliberate targeted process by people who really understood what exactly the model needed to be doing.
59
Not a case of typing a prompt in and a virus comes out.
60
Much more complicated than that.
61
But it is still a real shift.
62
I mean, a predictive model tells you about biology that already exists, whereas a generative model invents biology that never did.
63
How does something like EVO2 actually work?
64
And why is this different from a normal biology AI tool?
65
I mean, they've been around for a while now.
66
Most AI biology tools are narrow.
67
AlphaFold predicts how an existing protein folds, which, yes, is extremely useful, but it's answering a question about something that already exists,
68
whereas EVO2 is generative.
69
For scale, to put this in perspective for you,
70
9 trillion nucleotides is enough genetic material to cover the entire human genome about 3 ,000 times over.
71
And EVO2 gets there with just 4 billion parameters, which is smaller than GPT -3s, going back a while now,
72
$170 billion, which should really tell you the power here came from what it was trained on, not from the size of the model itself.
73
Three years ago, four years ago, an LLM writing usable code was cool.
74
It's a cool party trick.
75
Here's how I can develop some code.
76
But now, I mean, it produces full production ready software.
77
Capability curves in AI don't move straight.
78
They move in jumps, in leaps.
79
And we've watched this happen again and again, especially when it comes to language and code.
80
And we're watching the opening move of the same jump when it comes to genome design in biotech.
81
Okay, I want to go back to the hit rate because I feel like we skimmed over that earlier.
82
16 out of 300.
83
It's not high for the 16 out of 300 viruses that actually took.
84
I mean, that puts this closer to the GPT -2 era than the GPT -4 era of the technology.
85
It's on the same curve though.
86
Every generative model improves on more data, better outputs, better architecture.
87
But let's zoom out to say two to five years.
88
What's going to happen with this?
89
I really don't think anyone's saying something like EVO2 is designing a human genome next year
90
but every capability curve
91
we've watched has moved toward the harder version of the problem
92
not away from it now bacteriophage run a few thousand base
93
pairs bacteria runs into the millions humans into the billions the gap between 16 working phage gmones
94
and a model that reliably designs genomes for more complex organisms is an engineering gap
95
and i really think it's not a a fundamental one
96
that will come with time all right
97
but this isn't the first time biology has hit a moment
98
like this back in february 1975 around 140 scientists actually gathered
99
to figure out what to do about a brand new capability
100
which at the time was recombinant dna
101
which is engineering genes across the species for a first time
102
now paul berg who was the organizer of it looked for an existing framework to follow and found nothing.
103
So instead the scientists wrote their own voluntary safety guidelines before any regulations forced them to.
104
And those guidelines really shaped biotech policy for the next 50 years.
105
How was 70s by the way 50 years ago?
106
It's wild.
107
But 50 years later scientists reconvened in the same convention center for a 50th anniversary meeting
108
and stated the reason was for the same kind of moment was currently happening
109
that happened in the 70s but this time with AI driven biotech.
110
Basically a call for the people building this to set guardrails before anyone makes them.
111
Evo2's own paper does exactly that.
112
It argues for oversight.
113
The open question I think on everyone's minds is whether
114
that instinct spreads to the next lab
115
that picks up an open source genome model
116
or what guidelines will they follow whether it will stay limited
117
to the one team careful enough in this case thank goodness to publish
118
it now i want to be clear here none of this necessarily makes ai designed medicine dangerous by default
119
i think there are so many incredible breakthroughs that we are seeing
120
because of this phage therapy against resistant infections could save lives
121
and that's the outcome his team is actually working towards
122
but it also the flip side you have to talk about
123
that because a technology
124
that can do enormous good can also do enormous harm from the same capability
125
and that is something
126
that we need to really have conversations around how to put guardrails for how to govern it before it scales not after.
127
A lot of coverage jumped straight to the scariest version of this story.
128
Researchers in the US have for the first time used artificial intelligence to design new viruses.
129
What could possibly go wrong?
130
There's also concern that the technology could create new and yet unheard of bioweapons.
131
Let's be honest here.
132
If somebody actually wanted to cause harm with a pathogen today, training a genome model from scratch is definitely not the easy path.
133
The big deal here isn't that phage is dangerous.
134
It's that the thing standing between a generative model
135
and a dangerous sequence just got proven not to work while the regulatory conversation is still stuck on chatbots.
136
Now, I'm not asking if this specific phage we spoke about is scary.
137
I'm asking whether you're comfortable with what it proves is now possible.
138
Leave in the comments your thoughts.
139
Do you like topics like this around biotech?
140
I'm kind of obsessed lately with biotech, so let me know.
141
All right, I'll see you in the next video.
App downloaden
Alles wat je nodig hebt om vloeiend te spreken
AI UitspraakScoor elke zin
IPA OefeningBeheers elk geluid
WoordenschatBouw je woordenschat op
WoordenspelLeren terwijl je speelt
FOR YOU
Aanbevolen Video
C11
67 zinnen
Viruses: Components & Shapes - Microbiology Acellular Pre-Nursing, Pre-Med | @LevelUpRN
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C12
37 zinnen
I read Anthropic's 92-page risk factor document, so you don't have to | Explainer
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C16
32 zinnen
What if quantum physics could eradicate illness? | Jim Al-Khalili for Big Think
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C136
14 zinnen
Why Ebola Keeps Coming Back
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
97 zinnen
Explaining how AI is killing the PhD in less than 10 minutes
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C11
182 zinnen
I Tested The Viral Reverse Engineering Repo
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
163 zinnen
Session #1: Life Sciences in the 21st Century – A Pathway to Scientific Discovery - Rotem Sorek
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C13
171 zinnen
This Woman Cured Her Cancer with an Insane Method
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
130 zinnen
3 Ways AI Will Completely Change Your Life by 2029
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C12
685 zinnen
Editing Your DNA, with Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Jennifer Doudna
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C12
182 zinnen
We Let $200 GPT-Pro Think for 7 Days on Unsolved Math
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C18
75 zinnen
What AI can (and can't) currently do in a real lab | Jennifer Doudna
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
Woordenschat en spreektips bij deze les
Deze spreekles is gebaseerd op de video “AI Designed Viruses That Never Existed Before”. Deze woorden komen het vaakst terug: model, Evo, genome, viruses, design. Deze video bevat 6 zinnen en 1694 woorden om na te spreken. Het gesproken deel duurt 10:54. De spreker praat in een natuurlijk tempo van ongeveer 155 woorden per minuut, dicht bij een alledaags gesprek. Slechts 78% van de woorden hoort bij de 3.000 meest gebruikte Engelse woorden, dus de woordenschat is pittig.
Belangrijke woorden in deze video
15 woorden uit de video die het leren waard zijn, met uitspraak en betekenis:
| Woord | Uitspraak | Betekenis |
|---|---|---|
| virus zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈvaɪ.ɹəs/ | virus |
| genome zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈd͡ʒiː.noʊm/ | genoom |
| sequence zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈsiː.kwəns/ | volgorde, reeks |
| biology zelfstandig naamwoord | /baɪˈɑ.lə.d͡ʒi/ | biologie |
| gene zelfstandig naamwoord | /d͡ʒiːn/ | gen |
| scientist zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈsaɪəntəst/ | wetenschapper, wetenschapster |
| essentially bijwoord | /ɪˈsɛnʃəli/ | essentieel |
| rail zelfstandig naamwoord | /ɹeɪ(ə)l/ | rail, regel |
| curve zelfstandig naamwoord | /kɚv/ | curve, kromming |
| researcher zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/ | onderzoeker |
| harm zelfstandig naamwoord | /hɑːm/ | schade |
| whereas | /(h)wɛɹˈæz/ | hoewel, terwijl |
| narrow bijvoeglijk naamwoord | /ˈnæɹəʊ/ | nauw, smal |
| scary bijvoeglijk naamwoord | /ˈskɛə.ɹi/ | eng |
| genetic bijvoeglijk naamwoord | /d͡ʒəˈnɛt.ɪk/ | genetisch |
Phrasal verbs die je zult horen
| Woord | Uitspraak | Betekenis |
|---|---|---|
| come out werkwoord | /ˌkʌm ˈaʊt/ | uitkomen |
| figure out werkwoord | uitvogelen, er achter komen | |
| go back werkwoord | teruggaan | |
| pick up werkwoord | oppakken, optillen |
Zinnen om te herhalen
Korte, volledige zinnen uit de video die je in alledaagse gesprekken kunt gebruiken:
- Does this sequence look like something we already know is dangerous?
- I mean, it's making something that doesn't exist yet.
- How do we put guard rails for that?
- I mean, they've been around for a while now.
- Do you like topics like this around biotech?
Grammatica in deze video
De structuren die de spreker het meest gebruikt, met de exacte woorden uit de video:
| Structuur | In de video |
|---|---|
| Lijdende vorm be + voltooid deelwoord — het gaat om wat er gebeurt, niet om wie het doet | is projected · was released · is led |
| Present perfect have/has + voltooid deelwoord — iets uit het verleden dat nu nog telt | have been · have used · hasn't existed |
| Betrekkelijke bijzinnen who / which + zin — extra informatie over een persoon of ding | people who really · parameters, which is |
Uitspraak om op te letten
De spreker gebruikt 19 samentrekkingen en verkorte vormen, zoals don't, I'm, couldn't. Spreek ze kort uit, zoals je ze hoort.
- De “th”-klanken: synthesis /ˈsɪnθəsɪs/, breakthrough /ˈbɹeɪk.θɹuː/, gather /ˈɡæðɚ/, synthetic /sɪnˈθɛtɪk/, pathogen /ˈpæθəd͡ʒn̩/
- De klanken “sh” en “zh”: essentially /ɪˈsɛnʃəli/, artificial /ˌɑː.tɪˈfɪʃ.əl/, regulation /ˌɹɛɡjʊˈleɪʃən/, infection /ɪnˈfɛkʃən/, publish /ˈpʌblɪʃ/
- Lange woorden — let op de klemtoon: biology /baɪˈɑ.lə.d͡ʒi/, capability /ˌkeɪ.pəˈbɪl.ɪ.ti/, essentially /ɪˈsɛnʃəli/, artificial /ˌɑː.tɪˈfɪʃ.əl/, voluntary /ˈvɑ.lənˌt(ɛ)ɹi/
Klanken die Nederlandstaligen lastig vinden:
- Stemhebbende eindmedeklinker — /b/, /d/, /g/, /z/, /v/ niet verscherpen: curve /kɚv/, whereas /(h)wɛɹˈæz/, fold /ˈfəʊld/, complicated /ˈkɑm.plɪˌkeɪ.tɪd/, unexpected /ʌnɪkˈspɛktɪd/
- /æ/ — opener dan de Nederlandse “e”: whereas /(h)wɛɹˈæz/, narrow /ˈnæɹəʊ/, gather /ˈɡæðɚ/, scratch /skɹæt͡ʃ/, barrier /ˈbæɹi.ə/
- /g/ — een harde plofklank, geen Nederlandse “g”: argue /ˈɑɹ.ɡju/, regulation /ˌɹɛɡjʊˈleɪʃən/, gather /ˈɡæðɚ/, regulatory /ˈɹɛɡ.jʊ.lə.t(ɔː.)ɹi/, goodness /ˈɡʊdnəs/
Zo oefen je met deze video
- Luister de hele video één keer zonder te spreken en noteer de woorden die je niet kent.
- Begin op 0,75× snelheid, spreek zin voor zin na en ga terug naar normale snelheid zodra het makkelijk gaat.
- Neem jezelf op en vergelijk met het origineel; let daarbij op woorden als virus, genome, sequence.
Wat is de Shadowing-techniek?
Shadowing is een wetenschappelijk onderbouwde taalleermethode die oorspronkelijk is ontwikkeld voor professionele tolkentraining en gepopulariseerd door polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. De methode is eenvoudig maar krachtig: je luistert naar native Engelse audio en herhaalt het onmiddellijk hardop — als een schaduw die de spreker volgt met slechts 1–2 seconden vertraging. In tegenstelling tot passief luisteren of grammaticadrills, dwingt shadowing je hersenen en mondspieren om echte spraakpatronen tegelijkertijd te verwerken en te reproduceren. Onderzoek toont aan dat het de uitspraaknauwkeurigheid, intonatie, ritme, verbonden spraak, luisterbegrip en spreekvaardigheid aanzienlijk verbetert — waardoor het een van de meest effectieve methoden is voor IELTS Speaking-voorbereiding en echte Engelse communicatie.