Mar 10, 2025

BUGgy: Supporting AI Safety Education through Gamified Learning

Sophie Sananikone, Xenia Demetriou, Mariam Ibrahim, Nienke Posthumus

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) development continues to proliferate, educating the wider public on AI Safety and the risks and limitations of AI increasingly gains importance. AI Safety Initiatives are being established across the world with the aim of facilitating discussion-based courses on AI Safety. However, these initiatives are located rather sparsely around the world, and not everyone has access to a group to join for the course. Online versions of such courses are selective and have limited spots, which may be an obstacle for some to join. Moreover, efforts to improve engagement and memory consolidation would be a notable addition to the course through Game-Based Learning (GBL), which has research supporting its potential in improving learning outcomes for users. Therefore, we propose a supplementary tool for BlueDot's AI Safety courses, that implements GBL to practice course content, as well as open-ended reflection questions. It was designed with principles from cognitive psychology and interface design, as well as theories for question formulation, addressing different levels of comprehension. To evaluate our prototype, we conducted user testing with cognitive walk-throughs and a questionnaire addressing different aspects of our design choices. Overall, results show that the tool is a promising way to supplement discussion-based courses in a creative and accessible way, and can be extended to other courses of similar structure. It shows potential for AI Safety courses to reach a wider audience with the effect of more informed and safe usage of AI, as well as inspiring further research into educational tools for AI Safety education.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

A neat demonstration of what could be a much larger game. Some references seem to have been misquoted (e.g. Shaffer, 2006 doesn't include commentary on "Knowing" and "doing", and some of the concepts quoted don't appear to have influenced the game design.) I suggest further care is taken as this project develops to ensure deep engagement with the existing literature to influence design choices.

Great to see the user testing, and examples of questions (and approximate difficulty) of the questions for the final app. Technical and reflective questions enable the user to engage with the content on a variety of levels. Aiming to have a discussion board and readings available in the app are good ideas to extend and contextualize the learning from the BlueDot Impact course. However, beware of additional capacity required to moderate or manage active discussions between app users. Further explanation of the BlueDot Impact course and how the relevant knowledge was selected would be great to see.

Amazing project! I really enjoyed going through your prototype.

Here are some things I particularly enjoyed:

- It is so cute! It gave me a very friendly vibe and I truly had a lovely time going through the journey.

- I loved that you used the loading screens as an opportunity to educate users about AI safety.

- Good job tying the readings to particular quizzes, this would be a good learning supplement given we don't have quizzes on the intro to TAI course.

- Good call on using Figma to make a prototype and focusing more time on the content and execution! This means that you've managed to create something way more substantial by the end.

Here are some things I thought could have been improved:

- I think there were lots of moments where you could have leveraged your user's attention to teach them AI safety concepts! Perhaps when a person got a question wrong, you could explain why their answer is wrong. Or given they were already invested in BUG and the story, you might have woven in AI safety concepts into the narrative and used the quiz as a way to evaluate learning objectives.

- Participants typically have lots of questions about the content that aren't answered within the readings and are usually part of the facilitator's responsibility to answer. I wonder if there is a way that your app could also address this challenge.

- The key challenge here is developing challenging questions from the resources which properly assess learner's understanding. I would have loved to see more details on how you address this!

I think this sort of app would be excellent for targeting a much younger audience who would find this learning journey more accessible!

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

BUGgy: Supporting AI Safety Education through Gamified Learning

},

author={

Sophie Sananikone, Xenia Demetriou, Mariam Ibrahim, Nienke Posthumus

},

date={

3/10/25

},

organization={Apart Research},

note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

Apr 27, 2026

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

PROTEUS (PROTein Evaluation for Unusual Sequences): Structure-Informed Safety Screening for de novo and Evasion-Prone Protein-Coding Sequences

AI protein design tools like RFdiffusion, ProteinMPNN, and Bindcraft make it trivial to produce low-homology sequences that fold into active, potentially hazardous architectures. However, sequence homology-based biosafety screening tools cannot detect proteins that pose functional risk through structurally novel mechanisms with no sequence precedent. We present a tiered computational pipeline that addresses this gap by combining MMseqs2 sequence alignment with structure-based comparison via FoldSeek and DALI against curated toxin databases totaling ~34,000 entries. AlphaFold2-predicted structures are screened for both global fold similarity (FoldSeek) and local active/allosteric site geometry (DALI), capturing convergent functional hazards that sequence screening misses. The pipeline was validated against a panel of toxins, benign proteins, structural mimics, and de novo-designed Munc13 binders, as well as modified ricin variants with residue substitutions. We additionally tested robustness to partial-synthesis evasion, where a bad actor submits multiple shorter coding sequences intended for downstream reassembly into a full toxin-coding gene. We found that while sequence-based screening did not identify any de novo ricin analogues with high certainty, the combined pipeline with FoldSeek and DALI identified all 24 tested de novo ricins as toxic.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.