← 回到 Podcasts
Latent Space 2026-09-23 · 92 分鐘

🔬Bio-security is an AI Arms Race - Eric Nguyen (CEO, Radical Numerics)

Radical Numerics is using biological chain-of-thought and multimodal perception to keep up with the bio-defense arms race, design new genomes and gain insights into biology itself.

一句話總結

Radical Numerics 透過長上下文基因語言模型與生物思維鏈,應對生物安全軍備競賽並推進生物智能。

來賓

Eric Nguyen

Radical Numerics 共同創辦人兼 CEO,擁有 Stanford 生物工程與 AI 博士學位,曾主導 Evo 與 Evo 2 大型基因語言模型開發。

主要討論話題

TOPIC 01

生物安全的AI軍備競賽

如同開源對抗網路戰攻擊,生物防禦能力也必須跟上前沿模型的攻擊能力。目前在生物防禦方面正處於劣勢,Eric Nguyen 認為必須更積極推進前沿模型技術,因為提升生物能力的同一批模型,也是避免防禦落後的關鍵。

TOPIC 02

基因語言模型的發展突破

Eric Nguyen 早期在 Stanford 推動基因語言模型(GLM)時屢遭質疑,生物學家不相信其可行性、無法驗證輸出且看不到應用價值。但他持續推進並主導 Evo 與參與 Evo 2 的開發,後續團隊甚至成功用其生成噬菌體基因組並合成出具備功能的病毒。

TOPIC 03

DNA資料特性與長上下文架構

DNA 與自然語言不同,字母表僅有 ACTG 四個字元,但序列長度極長:人類基因平均達 6 萬長度、最長達 230 萬,全基因組更約 30 億。三年前透過 Striped Hyena 等長上下文模型架構創新,遠早於前沿實驗室發展 1M+ 上下文模型前,便克服了長序列建模的挑戰。

TOPIC 04

跨模態泛化與多語言理解

GLM 在處理 RNA 與蛋白質上表現良好,因為 DNA 序列中存在清楚的基因與蛋白編碼標記。這意味著模型在尚未引入 3D 蛋白質結構、表觀遺傳學或自然語言等其他模態前,就已經具備跨多種「生物語言」的泛化能力。

TOPIC 05

DNA思維鏈與自我優化

團隊透過 RNA 適體(aptamers)實驗驗證生物 Chain-of-Thought:按分數由低到高向模型展示逐步變好的序列,並保留最佳部分。模型能沿著該軌跡推論並進行自我優化,在未看過最佳資料的情況下自行重現更高評分的序列。

對你的啟發

以軌跡排序引導模型推理

在工作流中建立序列化評分軌跡(低分到高分範例),能引導模型學習優化方向並自行推外插出超越現有範例的高品質成果。

從底層語言獲得隱式跨模態泛化

若底層序列資料包含生成其他結構的標記資訊,先在單一底層長序列預訓練,往往能比過早引入複雜多模態特徵更自然地泛化。

長上下文架構優先於分塊策略

面對長程相依且資訊稀疏的長序列資料,採用專門的長上下文模型架構(如 Striped Hyena 架構)遠比傳統 RAG 切塊更保有全域語意連續性。

這集原文沒有逐字稿,摘要根據節目筆記整理。

節目筆記

The OpenAI → Hugging Face attack has people asking “what else do we need to worry about?” and Anthropic’s filters flag two things: cyber-security and biology. The natural question is: what about bio-security, then?

Clem Delangue argues that cyber-warfare defensive capabilities need to be open and to keep pace with frontier models’ attack capabilities

Radical Numerics co-founder Eric Nguyen sat down with us and explained why the same models that increase biological capability can also keep defense from falling behind.

While he was at Stanford, Eric couldn’t get traction on Genomic Language Models (GLMs) for a long time. Biologists didn’t believe it would work, didn’t think they could verify the output, and didn’t see important applications beyond what they could already do. He kept pushing, eventually helping lead the development of Evo and contributing to Evo 2 at Arc Institute. Those models were later used by a separate Arc/Stanford team to generate entire bacteriophage genomes that were synthesized into functional viruses !

Early ChatGPT spit out poems and email, and early DNA language models like Evo and Evo-2 could build a genome from scratch. DNA is different, however, from natural language in that it has a very small alphabet (4 characters ACTG) and that its sequences are very long:

60K for an average human gene long being up to 2.3M the whole human genome around 3B.

Innovation in long-context models made this possible about 3 years ago (footnote: striped hyena), long before the frontier labs were building 1M+ context models.

Now Eric and other AI x Bio luminaries 1 have founded Radical Numerics to build and scale GLMs to tack a wide range of biological problems, extending well beyond generating DNA.

Their GLMs already do pretty well with RNA and protein because there are clear markers in the DNA sequence for genes (RNA sequences the perform many functions) and specific genes that encode proteins. This means that the models already generalize to multiple “languages,” before even attempting to train in other modalities, such as 3d protein structure, epigenetics and natural language.

If a model thinks in the DNA language, maybe it understands the imprint that environment left on different genomes as well? Perhaps the model has learned the functional relationship between different sequences, and could extrapolate to new sequences based on that?

And so what we wanted to showcase was that if we show the model progressively better RNAs in a series of steps with its score, right? So you have like low scores first and then you gradually move up the chain. Can the model continue that trajectory on its own? And then in the final step, does it self optimize to a point where it's like the best score it can get? That was the experiment. Can we do that? And so we took a data set, a large data set of aptamers. We held out a portion of the best performing ones and we showed it only the lower ones, but then we ranked it, right? So we showcase lower scores with the RNA aptamers and then progressively got higher, and then ask the model to just like continue with that pattern. And it turns out it was able to recapitulate some of those higher scores that we had not shown it yet.

So, voila: chain-of-thought, thinking in DNA!

But much as long-context inference, chain-of-though and multi-modal perception unlocked sophisticated reasoning in natural language LLMs, these capabilities in GLMs are enabling increasingly sophisticated “biological intelligence,” and along with it, greater danger.

According to Eric, defense is currently losing this battle, but Radical Numerics argues to push the frontier harder!

I won’t spoil the details for you. In the episode we talk in detail about:

Biosecurity as an arms race — and how defense can keep up The genome as the imprint of the environment on DNA Going truly multi-modal How chain-of-though works when you “think” in the language of DNA

Eric Nguyen : Co-founder and CEO, holding a PhD in Bioengineering & AI from Stanford University. He previously helped develop large-scale genome language models like Evo and Evo 2 Michael Poli : Chief AI Scientist, holding a Stanford PhD and a former founding scientist at Liquid AI. Stefano Massaroli : President, a former postdoc with Yoshua Bengio and a founding team member at Liquid AI. Armin W. Thomas : CTO, a former Stanford postdoc who worked with Chris Ré and was previously at Liquid AI.

節目內容來自 Latent Space,版權屬原作者。 閱讀原文 ↗

← 回到 Podcasts