Feb 2, 2026

Political Intelligence for AI Safety: The AI Risk Attitudes Survey (AIRAS)

Nicholas Botti, Jamie Coombs, Anna Konovalenko

🏆 3rd Place Winner

The AI safety and governance community is making progress on defining red lines around existential risk from advanced AI systems, and building verification infrastructure to support this objective. However, this is only half the battle. Implementing these red lines requires unprecedented international coordination, and enforcing them requires credible commitments from national governments, all during a period of increased geopolitical tensions.

We present a whitepaper that makes the case that:

Implementation and enforcement of red lines is as much a political question as it is a technical one

While studies exist showing general public support for AI regulation, the depth of domestic political support among major powers for costly international AI regulation and willingness to make real sacrifices to enforce these red lines is understudied

Rigorous policy-credible surveys of public opinion in this area would both enhance the AI safety community’s efforts to prioritize scarce resources to the most effective action areas and provide advocates a valuable source of evidence to point to when lobbying national governments and international organizations

And therefore proposes and develops the methodology for AIRAS.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

Cool project idea! Systematically mapping political viability of specific AI safety red lines would indeed be very valuable. The design principles (especially comprehension gating and tradeoff testing) and the white paper do look like a serious attempt that is ready to be looked at and red-teamed by experts in survey design. Also congrts on the dashboard; it does a great job illustrating what actionable output could look like.

A great next step would be to do quick validation of the survey with a few real human respondents. Even a very small pilot (a few dozens of respondents) would dramatically strengthen this. Another good step would be to strengthen the analysis of related literature on risk perception and public opinion methodology. I'd be particularly interested in seeing a deeper investigation of the difference betwween stated preferences and actual behavior or even political mobilization.

I hope you pursue this project further and that it will eventually yield some very useful data!

This project provides good infrastructure for testing public willingness to bear real costs for security from AI systems. Generic polling showing support for "AI regulation" helps policymakers understand the direction of public preferences but not their strength — you can consistently observe publics that support more spending in every individual department while simultaneously wishing to cut overall government spending, or who favour more immigration from every specific group presented to them while wanting lower immigration overall - presumably because frequently when asked the public considers whether something is first order good/bad without implications for the general budget constraint. The same dynamic could plausibly apply to AI governance: abstract support for "careful management" may not survive contact with specific costs, so verifying this is important to get a sense of the depth of support for safety measures.

The survey methodology is well-designed to help find this, with comprehension gates, relative priority and a large number of possible costs the public could be concerned about, meaning it should be able to provide a reasonable estimate of the gap between raw support and "hard support" that survives cost framing is a vital indicator for long-run political durability. The political viability scorecard is well formatted and gives a clear map for future policy design. I would be very interested to see how the public's level of commitment to various specific interventions in this framework compares to data not accounting for this.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) Political Intelligence for AI Safety: The AI Risk Attitudes Survey (AIRAS)

},

author={

Nicholas Botti, Jamie Coombs, Anna Konovalenko

},

date={

2/2/26

},

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.