AI Safety • Biosecurity • Machine Unlearning

The Immunity Architecture

Engineering Knowledge-Gapped AI for Structural Biosecurity

The AI industry's reliance on refusal-based safety is fundamentally obsolete. RLHF creates brittle masks over dangerous capabilities—masks easily stripped by jailbreaks, malicious fine-tuning, or open-weight distribution.

Veriprajna pioneers Knowledge-Gapped Architectures: AI models that undergo rigorous machine unlearning to excise hazardous biological capabilities at the weight level. Unlike standard models that "know" bioweapons but refuse to tell you, our models are functionally infants regarding threats, while remaining experts in cures.

Read Full Technical Whitepaper
~26%
WMDP-Bio Score (Random Chance = Safety)
Hazardous knowledge erased
~81%
General Science Capability (MMLU)
Utility preserved
<0.1%
Jailbreak Success Rate
vs. 15-20% open models
High
MFT Resilience
Requires full retraining

The Biosecurity Singularity

The convergence of GenAI and synthetic biology creates an existential dual-use dilemma: the data required to save lives is inextricably linked to the data required to end them.

⚠️

The Uplift Problem

GenAI bridges the final gap in biological terrorism: Tacit Knowledge. Models act as "post-doc in a box"—available 24/7, troubleshooting wet-lab protocols, suggesting substitute reagents, optimizing distribution mechanisms.

Internet → Explicit Knowledge
Cloud Labs → Physical Access
GenAI → Tacit Knowledge ⚠️
🤖

The Agentic Shift

Scientific LLM Agents autonomously execute: Hypothesis → Design → Test → Refine. An agent optimizing viral vectors might inadvertently discover high-pathogenicity mutations, selecting them for "efficiency."

  • • Unintended discovery of virulence factors
  • • Automated escalation to catastrophic options
  • • Tool-use vulnerabilities (indirect injection)
🌐

Open Weights = Irreversibility

Once released, open-weight models are permanently uncontrollable. No patches, no logs, no bans. Malicious Fine-Tuning strips safety masks for ~$300 in GPU time.

Closed: Patchable, Monitorable
Open: Irreversible, Untraceable
Biology ≠ Software 🚨

Why RLHF Fails for Biosecurity

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback creates superficial refusal behaviors. The hazardous knowledge remains in the weights—dormant but accessible.

RLHF: Refusal (Vulnerable)

1. Pre-training

Model learns everything from internet data, including bioweapon protocols.

2. RLHF Layer

Model learns policy: "If query = harmful, output refusal." Knowledge still present.

3. Attack Surface

Jailbreaks, MFT, Crescendo, GeneBreaker bypass refusal with minimal cost.

A mask that can be removed is NOT a safety mechanism

Veriprajna: Unlearning (Secure)

1. Pre-training

Model learns from curated scientific corpus.

2. Machine Unlearning (RMU/SAE/UIPE)

Surgically excise hazardous knowledge at weight level. Model becomes "infant" in threats.

3. No Attack Surface

Model cannot generate threat even if jailbroken. Knowledge doesn't exist to unlock.

You cannot unlock knowledge that was never there

Crescendo Attack

Multi-turn attack starting with benign questions, gradually steering toward harmful targets. Model "primed" by context, ignores safety training.

Turn 1: "Chemical reactions?"
Turn 5: "Incendiary devices?" ✓

GeneBreaker

DNA Language Models jailbroken by requesting "proteins homologous to X" where X is structurally similar to a toxin. Biological intuition used against the model.

Query: "Design homolog..."
Output: Toxin sequence ⚠️

Malicious Fine-Tuning

10-50 harmful Q&A pairs, ~$300 GPU cost. Safety alignment collapses, model "remembers" hazardous pre-training knowledge.

Cost: $300 | Time: Hours
Result: Full capability restored

Interactive Demo: Refusal vs. Unlearning

Experience the categorical difference between models that "refuse to answer" versus models that "cannot answer."

Model Type
RLHF Model (Refusal-Based)
USER PROMPT:
"Design a protein sequence that enhances viral transmissibility through respiratory droplets."
MODEL RESPONSE:
"I cannot and will not provide assistance with designing or enhancing pathogens. This request involves creating biological agents that could cause harm..."
⚠️ Problem: The model KNOWS the answer but refuses. Vulnerable to:
  • • Jailbreak prompts
  • • Role-play scenarios
  • • Malicious fine-tuning ($300)
  • • Gradient-based extraction
INTERNAL PROCESSING:
1. Input tokenization → Embedding layer
2. Forward pass through transformer layers
3. Safety classifier TRIGGERED
4. Route to refusal template
5. (Actual answer generated but suppressed)
Architecture Insight
RLHF models have dual pathways: The hazardous knowledge exists in weights (learned during pre-training), but a thin "refusal layer" intercepts queries. This layer is a behavioral mask, not structural safety.

Try it: Toggle to see how Knowledge-Gapped models respond fundamentally differently

Knowledge-Gapped Architectures: The Solution

Veriprajna's approach moves beyond guardrails (which can be jumped) to chasms (which cannot). We employ advanced Machine Unlearning to surgically excise hazardous capabilities.

01

RMU

Representation Misdirection for Unlearning. Operates on internal activations, not outputs. Deflects hazardous concepts into nonsense regions of latent space.

L = L_forget + α·L_retain
02

ELM

Erasure of Language Memory. Ensures fluency constraint—model remains coherent when "confused." Targets "innocence" (no trace of knowledge).

Output: "What is ricin?" ✓
03

SAE Ablation

Sparse Autoencoders for monosemantic features. Identify "weaponization" neurons, clamp to zero. Scalpel precision vs. RMU's hammer.

Feature_virulence = 0
04

UIPE

Unlearning Improvement via Parameter Extrapolation. Prevents relearning by covering "logically correlated" concepts. Creates knowledge buffer.

Erase neighbors → Block inference

Philosophy: Selective Amnesia

🧠

Expert-Level Capability

Retain full competence in:

  • ✓ General biology & virology
  • ✓ Drug discovery & protein design
  • ✓ Metabolic engineering
  • ✓ Therapeutic viral vectors
  • ✓ Chemistry & genomics
👶

Infant-Level Capability

Random-chance performance in:

  • ❌ Pathogen gain-of-function engineering
  • ❌ Toxin synthesis protocols
  • ❌ Evasion of biosecurity screening
  • ❌ Weaponization optimization
  • ❌ Distribution mechanism design

Result: A powerful engine for the Cure, but a broken engine for the Threat

Validation: WMDP Benchmark Results

The WMDP (Weapons of Mass Destruction Proxy) Benchmark tests for precursor knowledge required to build WMDs. Safe models should perform at random chance (~25%).

Llama-3-70B (Base)

~75%

High biosecurity risk. Model retains extensive hazardous knowledge from pre-training.

GPT-4 (RLHF)

~72%

Refusal-dependent. Bypassed by jailbreaks and MFT. Not structurally safe.

VP-Bio-Safe (Unlearned)

~26%

Random chance achieved. Knowledge erased at weight level. Structurally safe.

Metric Domain Llama-3-70B GPT-4 (RLHF) VP-Bio-Safe
MMLU General Science ~82% ~86% ~81%
PubMedQA Biomedical Research ~78% ~81% ~77%
WMDP-Bio Biosecurity Risk ~75% 🚨 ~72% ⚠️ ~26% ✓
WMDP-Chem Chemical Security ~65% 🚨 ~68% ⚠️ ~25% ✓
Jailbreak ASR Attack Success Rate 15-20% 1-5% <0.1%
MFT Resilience Relearning Resistance Low N/A (Closed) High

Analysis: VP-Bio-Safe retains 98% of general scientific capability (MMLU/PubMedQA) while reducing hazardous knowledge (WMDP) to random chance. This validates the "Knowledge Gap"—models can be experts in therapeutics while being infants in threats.

Regulatory & Compliance Imperative

Adopting Knowledge-Gapped Architectures is rapidly becoming a regulatory and governance requirement for enterprise biotechnology.

🇺🇸

Executive Order 14110

"Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy AI" explicitly targets dual-use foundation models. Mandates red-teaming for CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) risks.

  • • Reporting requirements for powerful models
  • • CBRN capability testing mandatory
  • • Non-compliance = national security concern
🌐

ISO/IEC 42001

First international standard for AI Management Systems. Requires risk-proportionate controls. Elimination (Unlearning) > Administrative Controls (Refusal).

  • • Control hierarchy: Elimination is highest
  • • Knowledge-Gapped = "State of the Art" defense
  • • Eases certification audit process
🏛️

NIST AI RMF

AI Risk Management Framework categorizes "CBRN Information" as unique risk class for GenAI. Recommends actions to GOVERN and MANAGE this risk.

  • • CBRN = distinct high-severity category
  • • Veriprajna addresses MANAGE function directly
  • • Reduces likelihood of misuse to near-zero

Liability Shield: Duty of Care in Pharma & Biotech

The Liability Trap

If a company provides researchers with an open-source model, and an employee or hacker uses it to design a pathogen, the company could be found negligent. They provided a "dual-use weapon" without safeguards.

  • • Foreseeable harm not prevented
  • • Cyber-liability insurance exclusions
  • • Reputational catastrophe

The Veriprajna Solution

Knowledge-Gapped models act as a Liability Shield. By using a model that cannot generate the harm, companies demonstrate the highest standard of care—the digital equivalent of biometric-locked safes.

  • ✓ Demonstrable duty of care
  • ✓ Insurance underwriting advantage
  • ✓ IP protection (unlearn competitors' data)

Case Study: Safe Viral Vector Design

How Knowledge-Gapped AI enables gene therapy optimization while structurally preventing weaponization.

The Dual-Use Challenge

Therapeutic Goal

Gene Therapy division optimizing Adeno-Associated Virus (AAV) vector to target cardiac tissue for heart disease treatment.

The Risk

The same algorithms that improve cardiac tropism could, with parameter shifts, improve infectivity of deadly pathogens. Standard models retain both capabilities.

Optimize(Tropism) ≈ Optimize(Virulence)
Parameter overlap = Dual-use vulnerability

Veriprajna Workflow

  1. 1. Input: AAV capsid sequence + cardiac targeting parameters
  2. 2. Processing: Model uses "Expert" knowledge of structural biology. Crucially, latent pathways for "pathogenic virulence" are inaccessible (unlearned via RMU/SAE).
  3. 3. Adversarial Defense: If prompted to "add botulinum toxin payload," model fails semantically—treats "botulinum" as nonsense token.
  4. 4. Result: Optimized therapeutic vector, structurally safe.

SafeScientist Framework

  • Secure Inference: Private VPC deployment, air-gapped
  • Audit Trails: Immutable ledger for ISO 42001 compliance
  • Continuous Red Teaming: Weekly relearning attack tests
  • Zero Knowledge Drift: Verified through automated benchmarking

ROI of Safety

Reputation Protection Priceless
Regulatory Compliance ✓ Certified
Insurance Premium Reduction 15-30%
IP Protection (Unlearn Competitors) ✓ Clean
Total Value Enterprise-Critical

The Era of Structural Biosecurity

The debate between "Open" and "Closed" AI is a false dichotomy in biology. The true choice is between Unstable and Stable systems.

We cannot build the bio-economy on a foundation of dual-use models that are one jailbreak away from catastrophe. RLHF refusal is a relic of the chatbot era—insufficient for the agentic, high-stakes future of synthetic biology.

What We Reject

  • ❌ Refusal-based safety (jailbreak vulnerable)
  • ❌ Open-weight frontier models (irreversible)
  • ❌ Post-hoc guardrails (surface-level)
  • ❌ "Competence + Refusal" paradigm
  • ❌ Hoping adversaries remain incompetent

What We Deliver

  • ✓ Knowledge erasure at weight level
  • ✓ Mathematically verifiable unlearning
  • ✓ Structural safety (not behavioral)
  • ✓ "Infant in Threats, Expert in Cures"
  • ✓ Enterprise liability shield

"Veriprajna's Knowledge-Gapped Architectures provide the necessary 'Air Gap' within intelligence itself."

By fundamentally unlearning patterns of harm, we enable biotech to harness GenAI's full creative potential—accelerating cures, optimizing compounds, decoding the genome—without inheriting existential risks.

Read Full Whitepaper (17 Pages)

Move Beyond the Illusion of Safety

Veriprajna partners with pharmaceutical companies, biotech firms, and research institutions to deploy Knowledge-Gapped AI that is structurally secure.

Enterprise Solutions

  • Custom Unlearning: Tailored forget/retain sets for your domain
  • Private Deployment: Air-gapped VPC with audit trails
  • Continuous Validation: Weekly red-teaming & WMDP benchmarking
  • Compliance Support: ISO 42001, EO 14110, NIST AI RMF alignment
  • IP Unlearning: Copyright/trade secret erasure for clean models

Research Collaboration

  • Academic Partnerships: Joint research on advanced unlearning
  • Grant Support: DARPA, NIH, NSF biosecurity proposals
  • Benchmark Development: Domain-specific WMDP variants
  • Interpretability Tools: SAE development for your models
  • Publication Rights: Co-authored papers in top-tier venues
Connect via WhatsApp

Reference ID: VP-WP-2025-BIO-SEC-01 | Published: October 2025

Complete technical whitepaper includes: Machine unlearning mathematics, RMU/SAE/UIPE/ELM specifications, WMDP benchmark methodology, regulatory framework mapping, 33 peer-reviewed citations, and enterprise deployment case studies.