科學家呼吁安全使用人工智能設計的蛋白質

Could proteins designed by artificial intelligence （AI） ever be used as bioweapons？ To remove this possibility as well as the probable burden on government regulation， researchers launched an initiative calling for the safe and ethical use of protein design.

“The potential benefits of protein design far exceed the dangers at this point，” says David Baker， a computational biophysicist at the University of Washington， who is part of the voluntary initiative. Dozens of other scientists applying AI to biological design have signed the initiative’s list of commitments.

The initiative follows reports from US Congress， think tanks and other organizations exploring the possibility that AI tools ranging from protein-structure prediction networks such as AlphaFold to large language models such as the one that powers ChatGPT could make it easier to develop biological weapons， including new toxins（毒素） or highly transmissible viruses.

Researchers， including Baker and his colleagues， have been trying to design and make new proteins for decades. Thanks to advances in AI in recent years， their endeavors that once took years or were impossible such as designing a protein that binds to a specified molecule can now be achieved in minutes. Most of the AI tools that scientists have developed to enable this are freely available， leading to the potential for malevolent（惡意的） use of designed proteins.

The initiative that Baker and dozens of other scientists from other countries are rolling out calls on the biodesign community to police itself， including regularly reviewing the capabilities of AI tools and monitoring research practices. Baker would like to see his field establish an expert committee to review software before it is made widely available and to recommend ‘guardrails’ if necessary.

The initiative also calls for improved screening of DNA synthesis， a key step in translating AI-designed proteins into actual molecules. Currently， many companies providing this service are signed up to an industry group， the International Gene Synthesis Consortium （IGSC）， that requires them to screen orders to identify harmful molecules.

（材料來自Nature網站，有刪改）

1. How did scientists feel about AI-designed proteins ？

A. Disappointed. B. Concerned.

C. Confused. D. Confident.

2. The aim of many scientists’ signing the initiative is ______.

A. to remove the possibility of using AI as bioweapons

B. to secure the reasonable use of AI-designed proteins

C. to stop designed proteins from becoming transmissible viruses

D. to protect people from being badly influenced by proteins

3. Which of the following usage of “police” in Paragraph 5 is correct？

A. Police suspect a local gang.

B. Dozens of police tried to end the violence.

C. The border police are actually UN officials.

D. The profession is policed by a regulatory body.

4. What can we learn from Baker？

A. He is the early one to launch the initiative for protein use.

B. He had succeeded designing new proteins without AI.

C. He has been contributing to the research of designed proteins.

D. He is positive about the market of designed proteins in the future.

1. B。解析：觀點態度題。材料第一段提到“人工智能設計的蛋白質會被用作生物武器嗎？為了消除這種可能性及可能給政府監管帶來的負擔，研究人員發起了一項倡議，呼吁安全、合乎道德地使用這種蛋白質”，由此可知，科學家們擔心人工智能設計的蛋白質會被不合理使用。B選項“擔憂的”與材料內容相符，故選B。

2. B。解析：推理判斷題。材料第一段的最后一句提到“研究人員發起了一項倡議，呼吁安全、合乎道德地使用這種蛋白質”，第五段的第一句提到“Baker和其他幾十位來自其他國家的科學家推出的這項倡議呼吁生物設計界自我監管”，由此可知，科學家們簽署這項倡議是為了確保這種由人工智能設計的蛋白質得到合理使用。B選項“確保人工智能設計的蛋白質得到合理使用”與材料相符，故選B。

3. D。解析：詞義猜測題。材料第五段的第一句中提到“包括定期審查人工智能工具的能力和監測研究實踐”，因此畫線詞“police”的意思應與“審查”和“監測”相近。D選項“這個行業由一個監管機構來監管”與材料內容相符，故選D。

4. C。解析：推理判斷題。材料第四段的第一句提到“包括Baker和他的同事在內的研究人員幾十年來一直在嘗試設計和制造新的蛋白質”，第五段的最后一句提到“Baker希望看到他的領域建立一個專家委員會，在軟件廣泛使用之前對其進行審查”，由此推測Baker一直致力于這項技術的研究，C選項“他一直致力于設計蛋白質的研究”與材料內容相符，故選C。