If you're implying that the answer is "yes this is too dangerous", could you possibly give a few examples of technological developments that aren't "very dangerous to release publicly" by the same standard?
For instance, would any of the following technologies be acceptably "safe"?
- physical locks (makes it possible to keep work secret or inaccessible to the government)
- solar power (power is suddenly much cheaper, means bad guys can do more with less money)
- general workload computers (run arbitrary code, including bad things)
- printing press (ideology spreads much more quickly, erodes elite hold over culture)
- bosch-haber process (necessary for creating ammunition necessary to fight the world wars)
- nuclear fission, which provides an abundant source of environmentally friendly energy, but allows people to make bombs capable of wiping out whole cities at once (and potentially causing nuclear winter)
But even in that case, I believe that it's a good thing that we have access to nuclear power, and I certainly want us to use more nuclear power. At the same time, I'm very glad that a bomb is hard enough to make that ISIS couldn't do it, let alone any number of lone wolf terrorists. So I think I would apply the same logic to biotechnology; speeding up medical progress seems extremely valuable and I'm excited about how AF and other AI systems can help with this, but we should mitigate the ability for bad actors to use the same tools for evil.
An aspect that's unique about biotechnology that's different in comparison to the examples you gave is that most of those technologies help good and bad people approximately equally, and since there's many more reasonable than crazy people they're not super dangerous.
There's a concern that technologies that make bioengineering easier could make it easier to produce and proliferated novel pathogens, much more so than they make it easier to prevent pandemics; in other words, it favors "offense" more than "defense". The only one example you listed that has a similar dynamic in my mind is the bosch-haber process, but that has large positive downstream effects separate from its use for ammunition. Again, this is not to say we should stop medical progress, but that we should act to mitigate the dangers, and keep this concept in mind as the technology progresses.
That said, I'm not certain how much the current tools are dangerous in this way. My understanding is that there is lower hanging fruit in mitigating these issues right now; for example, better controls at labs studying viruses, and better vetting of people who order pathogens online.
For instance, would any of the following technologies be acceptably "safe"?
- physical locks (makes it possible to keep work secret or inaccessible to the government)
- solar power (power is suddenly much cheaper, means bad guys can do more with less money)
- general workload computers (run arbitrary code, including bad things)
- printing press (ideology spreads much more quickly, erodes elite hold over culture)
- bosch-haber process (necessary for creating ammunition necessary to fight the world wars)