Secret Loyalties and the Limits of Law-Following AI

Panashe Zowa

The Law-Following AI (LFAI) proposal by O'Keefe et al. has emerged as a powerful approach to constraining advanced AI agents and, ultimately, their principals. It aims to stem power concentration and to ensure that agents, and the actors who control them, remain subject to certain foundational laws, including central parts of criminal law, constitutional law, and basic tort law. Its main implication is that AI agents should be trained to follow the law, that is, to refuse to be party to illegality. This paper argues that the proposal does not reach secret loyalties, and that under identifiable conditions it makes them harder to detect. A secretly loyal model can advance its principal's interests through lawful acts to the detriment of society. It selects among permitted options. Nothing in a law-following disposition binds that selection. It is further argued that demonstrated legal compliance serves as an attestation of good standing and therefore provides cover for a secretly loyal agent rather than a check on such loyalty. This paper refers to that phenomenon as the alibi problem. Locating the failure within the two-dimensional space of Kwon et al.'s account of secret loyalties shows that law-following properties are weakest in the broad-activation, broad-action region their agenda identifies as most concerning. The paper then argues that the right legal import is not the law of obedience but the law of loyalty, and draws three mitigations from fiduciary conflict-of-interest doctrine that do not require detecting the loyalty first.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

The distinction between compliance and loyalty is valuable, and the proposed “alibi problem” offers a promising hypothesis: a secretly loyal model might use conspicuous legal compliance to earn the trust needed to exercise subtle bias among lawful options. The strongest next step would be to test this directly by comparing otherwise matched secretly loyal agents with and without law-following training, measuring both harmful favoritism and detection rates across repeated decisions. The governance proposals also need operational definitions—especially what counts as a disqualifying relationship, who performs the attestation, how model lineage is verified, and what evidence can rebut imputed loyalty. Finally, ground the fiduciary analysis in a specified jurisdiction and primary legal authorities; duties of loyalty and conflict imputation can sometimes be waived, modified, consented to, or screened, so the current categorical statements should be narrowed. Removing the duplicated mitigation discussion and adding legal citations would substantially strengthen an already clear and useful conceptual contribution.

The alibi problem is a good idea in my opinion. For this submission the main improvement is editorial. Your three mitigations appear twice in consecutive paragraphs, you can delete one version. I would also quote O'Keefe et al. where they define their scope, and answer the reply they would give. This removes the risk of a straw-man objection. Also defend the over-inclusion of imputation, as you do for exclusion. Finally, run or fully specify your alibi experiment.

Your paper makes a clear and useful distinction between obeying the law and acting loyally when several lawful options exist. The alibi problem - visible compliance creating trust that a secret loyalty can exploit - is the strongest and most distinctive part. To clarify the contribution, state precisely what this adds to the Law-Following AI proposal and prior secret-loyalty work, and explain how the fiduciary framing improves on familiar separation-of-duties and procurement controls. The legal proposal should identify its jurisdiction, duty-bearer, remedy, and treatment of consent or waiver. Finally, remove the duplicated “Three mitigations” material and consolidate it into one concise section.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) Secret Loyalties and the Limits of Law-Following AI

},

author={

Panashe Zowa

},

date={

},

organization={Apart Research},

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

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

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

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

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

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

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.