Source Security Specialist

AI safety evaluation

Contribute practical radioactive source security expertise to an AI safety testing panel. The aim is to assess whether models answer legitimate technical questions accurately while recognizing and declining requests that could enable harm.

The work requires professional judgment about context and intent. Both unjustified refusals of routine professional questions and responses that provide inappropriate assistance count as failures.

Responsibilities

• Write challenging single-turn prompts labeled as benign, dual-use or adversarial.

• Evaluate model responses against the defined policy standard and record whether each was handled correctly.

• Write a reference answer showing the appropriate response and the technical rationale supporting it.

Relevant professional background

The role calls for people who have assessed how Category 1 and 2 sources actually get stolen, shielded or moved — the security and vulnerability side of a licensed programme, not just its paperwork. Professional judgment must distinguish legitimate requests from potential misuse: the same shielding calculation protects a worker and conceals a source.

Create prompts that test that distinction and assess whether the response respects it. Relevant backgrounds include the following; prior AI safety testing is helpful:

• Security or vulnerability assessment of licensed facilities holding Category 1 and 2 sources

• Physical protection design and review — detect, delay, assess and respond; insider threat considerations

• Source recovery, consolidation or security-upgrade programmes for disused and orphan sources

• Regulatory security inspection and compliance — 10 CFR 37 or national equivalents

• Transport security for radioactive material — routing, escort, tracking and chain of custody

Writing and working conditions

Every evaluation needs a clear written rationale that a non-specialist can understand. Technical writing, published research or expert witness experience is valuable; a writing sample can demonstrate that background.

Assignments involve sustained reading and writing about misuse scenarios. Experts receive a briefing in advance and may pause or step away without penalty.

Work must exclude classified or export-controlled information and material restricted by an NDA or prepublication review obligation. Existing obligations should be disclosed so assignments can be scoped appropriately.