March 16, 2026 • Last year, Signature Science AI Biosafety Lead Dr. Danielle LeSassier was interviewed as part of a multi-institutional study led by RAND into the state of Human Uplift Studies for informing AI Safety. As providers in this space, SigSci designs approaches to empirically test the biological and chemical laboratory uplift capabilities of AI models and investigate potential areas of concern posed by their capabilities as it relates to biological and chemical threats.
The paper has been completed is now available. The abstract and link to the paper can be found below.
Abstract:
“Human uplift studies — or studies that measure AI effects on human performance
relative to a status quo, typically using randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology — are increasingly used to inform deployment, governance, and safety
decisions for frontier AI systems. While the methods underlying these studies
are well-established, their interaction with the distinctive properties of frontier AI
systems remains underexamined, particularly when results are used to inform highstakes decisions. We present findings from interviews with 16 expert practitioners
with experience conducting human uplift studies in domains including biosecurity, cybersecurity, education, and labor. Across interviews, experts described a
recurring tension between standard causal inference assumptions and the object
of study itself. Rapidly evolving AI systems, shifting baselines, heterogeneous
and changing user proficiency, and porous real-world settings strain assumptions
underlying internal, external, and construct validity, complicating the interpretation
and appropriate use of uplift evidence. We synthesize these challenges across key
stages of the human uplift research lifecycle and map them to practitioner-reported
solutions, clarifying both the limits and the appropriate uses of evidence from
human uplift studies in high-stakes decision-making.”