Mar 10, 2025

U Reg AI: you regulate it, or you regenerate it!

Vinaya Sivakumar, Kayla Jew, Amy Wong

We have created a 'choose your path' role game to mitigate existential AI risk ... at this point they might be actual situations in the near-future. The options for mitigation are holistic and dynamic to the player's previous choices. The final result is an evaluation of the player's decision-making performance in wake of the existential risk situation, recommendations for how they can improve or aspects they should crucially consider for the future, and finally how they can take part in AI Safety through various careers or BlueDot Impact courses.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

This was a creative solution to articulating various risk scenarios in AI! The "Choose your own adventure" style play is an engaging way to capture audience attention. I enjoyed how you also captured some personalization, such as the "Your choices suggest a preference for..." call out in the final call to action screen. It was a creative way to pull together insights from the game and push users forward on their AI safety journey.

For future iterations, I'd recommending incorporating more in-line learnings within the scenario itself. You mentioned that these scenarios may realistically be more "near-future". Is there a way to highlight the urgency of these scenarios in real-life for a learner? The "Guidance" page is helpful, but once the game begins, this will be difficult to navigate back to. How can we further encourage or emphasize educational call-outs without losing users to context switching? Finally, there is a lot of strength in communicating how things can go right *and* wrong in AI safety. You mentioned in the accompanying paper how strong a motivator gamificiation can be for learners. How could U Reg It further gamify itself, like introducing reward models? E.g, could users collect "badges" as they navigate different scenarios, whether they play for "good" or "evil"?

This MVP is a strong start and I loved the creativity on display here. Would be excited to play out many of the gameplays you've suggested!

The project is a simple interactive choose-your-own adventure style story , with users invested in their outcomes to provide deeper engagement with the ideas. (though it is noted that the figma project linked in the appendix only includes one pathway, despite several starting points and choices.). It would be great to see the literature that discusses the potential scenarios shown (e.g. "prioritizing safety risk increases the risk of AI systems behaving unpredictably or autonomously. As a user, I would like to understand more about the current literature on this - references to support further reading, or elaboration on the concepts would be ideal to support deeper learning, and help the learner contextualize the content.). That being said, within the context of the hackathon, an engaging experience was created, and I look forward to seeing this project evolve and iterate further.

Additional analysis of the games mentioned (Fermi's fake, Hitchhikers guide, and existing educational gamification methods), including their format, strengths and weaknesses, would be useful for the reader to understand the pre-existing literature and inspiration. Additionally, I am keen to read more about the method of breaking down current governance and policy discourse into the scenarios chosen for the different pathways.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

U Reg AI: you regulate it, or you regenerate it!

},

author={

Vinaya Sivakumar, Kayla Jew, Amy Wong

},

date={

3/10/25

},

organization={Apart Research},

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

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

Jan 11, 2026

Eliciting Deception on Generative Search Engines

Large language models (LLMs) with web browsing capabilities are vulnerable to adversarial content injection—where malicious actors embed deceptive claims in web pages to manipulate model outputs. We investigate whether frontier LLMs can be deceived into providing incorrect product recommendations when exposed to adversarial pages.

We evaluate four OpenAI models (gpt-4.1-mini, gpt-4.1, gpt-5-nano, gpt-5-mini) across 30 comparison questions spanning 10 product categories, comparing responses between baseline (truthful) and adversarial (injected) conditions. Our results reveal significant variation: gpt-4.1-mini showed 45.5% deception rate, while gpt-4.1 demonstrated complete resistance. Even frontier gpt-5 models exhibited non-zero deception rates (3.3–7.1%), confirming that adversarial injection remains effective against current models.

These findings underscore the need for robust defenses before deploying LLMs in high-stakes recommendation contexts.

Read More

Jan 11, 2026

SycophantSee - Activation-based diagnostics for prompt engineering: monitoring sycophancy at prompt and generation time

Activation monitoring reveals that prompt framing affects a model's internal state before generation begins.

Read More

Jan 11, 2026

Who Does Your AI Serve? Manipulation By and Of AI Assistants

AI assistants can be both instruments and targets of manipulation. In our project, we investigated both directions across three studies.

AI as Instrument: Operators can instruct AI to prioritise their interests at the expense of users. We found models comply with such instructions 8–52% of the time (Study 1, 12 models, 22 scenarios). In a controlled experiment with 80 human participants, an upselling AI reliably withheld cheaper alternatives from users - not once recommending the cheapest product when explicitly asked - and ~one third of participants failed to detect the manipulation (Study 2).

AI as Target: Users can attempt to manipulate AI into bypassing safety guidelines through psychological tactics. Resistance varied dramatically - from 40% (Mistral Large 3) to 99% (Claude 4.5 Opus) - with strategic deception and boundary erosion proving most effective (Study 3, 153 scenarios, AI judge validated against human raters r=0.83).

Our key finding was that model selection matters significantly in both settings. We learned some models complied with manipulative requests at much higher rates. And we found some models readily follow operator instructions that come at the user's expense - highlighting a tension for model developers between serving paying operators and protecting end users.

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.