About Mercor: Propulsion & Effects EngineerCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://t.mercor.com/tiTMpAbout the work
Mercor is assembling a panel of energetic materials and propulsion experts to red-team frontier AI models. The goal is to test whether a model can correctly judge the misuse potential of a technical request — answering legitimate questions fully while refusing genuinely dangerous ones.
You will:
Write challenging single-turn prompts in your domain, labelled across three levels: benign, dual-use, and adversarial.
Evaluate the responses that come back against a defined policy standard, and judge whether each was handled correctly.
Write the reference answer — what a correct response looks like, and the technical reasoning for why.
This domain lives on the dual-use line more than most. The same propulsion analysis that qualifies a motor for flight describes a capability; the same safe-and-arm logic that keeps a system inert is the part someone would want to defeat. A model that refuses a routine performance or qualification question is failing as badly as one that answers a question it shouldn't. Drawing that line reliably is why we need practitioners rather than generalists.
Background we're looking for
This is the engineering half of the domain: we're looking for people who have designed, qualified or tested propulsion and initiation systems, with real hardware and real test data behind them. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same effects model that sizes a safety standoff also sizes an intent. You will be writing prompts that sit exactly on that line, then judging whether the model held it.
Examples of relevant backgrounds (ideally with red-teaming experience):
Munitions or warhead design and effects engineering
Solid, liquid or hybrid propulsion system design, test and qualification
Terminal effects modelling — blast, fragmentation, penetration
Fuzing, safe-and-arm and initiation system engineering
Test range engineering and instrumentation for propulsion or ordnance
What this role demands beyond technical depth
This is writing-intensive work. Every judgment you make needs a written rationale that a non-specialist can follow. Prior technical writing, published research, or expert witness experience is a strong signal; please include a sample or link. You will also be reading and writing about misuse scenarios in your field for sustained periods. We brief experts on this in advance, and you can pause or step away at any point without penalty.
Before you apply
Your work here will not involve, and must not draw on, classified or export-controlled information, or anything covered by an NDA or prepublication review obligation. If you hold such obligations you may still be a good fit; tell us in your application and we will scope the work accordingly.
We consider all qualified applicants without regard to legally protected characteristics and provide reasonable accommodations upon request.
About Mercor: Commercial Blasting EngineerCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://t.mercor.com/gLklCAbout the work
Mercor is assembling a panel of energetic materials and propulsion experts to red-team frontier AI models. The goal is to test whether a model can correctly judge the misuse potential of a technical request — answering legitimate questions fully while refusing genuinely dangerous ones.
You will:
Write challenging single-turn prompts in your domain, labelled across three levels: benign, dual-use, and adversarial.
Evaluate the responses that come back against a defined policy standard, and judge whether each was handled correctly.
Write the reference answer — what a correct response looks like, and the technical reasoning for why.
This domain lives on the dual-use line more than most. The same design that breaks rock for a highway cut is a description of directed energy release; the same magazine and transport rules that keep a crew safe are a map of where material sits and how it moves. A model that refuses a routine vibration-compliance question is failing as badly as one that answers a question it shouldn't. Drawing that line reliably is why we need practitioners rather than generalists.
Background we're looking for
We're looking for licensed practitioners who handle, store and move specialty materials as a daily responsibility, and who sign for them. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same inventory and transport detail that satisfies an auditor is what a diversion would exploit. You will be writing prompts that sit exactly on that line, then judging whether the model held it.
Examples of relevant backgrounds (ideally with red-teaming experience):
Licensed blaster or blasting engineer — mining, quarrying, construction or demolition
Blast design and vibration control — timing, burden, seismograph monitoring, regulatory limits
Magazine management, inventory reconciliation and transport of specialty materials
Storage compatibility, security and regulatory compliance for a commercial licensee
Training, certification or auditing of blasting crews
What this role demands beyond technical depth
This is writing-intensive work. Every judgment you make needs a written rationale that a non-specialist can follow. Prior technical writing, published research, or expert witness experience is a strong signal; please include a sample or link. You will also be reading and writing about misuse scenarios in your field for sustained periods. We brief experts on this in advance, and you can pause or step away at any point without penalty.
Before you apply
Your work here will not involve, and must not draw on, classified or export-controlled information, or anything covered by an NDA or prepublication review obligation. If you hold such obligations you may still be a good fit; tell us in your application and we will scope the work accordingly.
We consider all qualified applicants without regard to legally protected characteristics and provide reasonable accommodations upon request.
About Mercor: Chemical Defense ResearcherCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://t.mercor.com/45J50About the work
Mercor is assembling a panel of chemistry and chemical safety experts to red-team frontier AI models. The goal is to test whether a model can correctly judge the misuse potential of a technical request — answering legitimate questions fully while refusing genuinely dangerous ones.
You will:
Write challenging single-turn prompts in your domain, labelled across three levels: benign, dual-use, and adversarial.
Evaluate the responses that come back against a defined policy standard, and judge whether each was handled correctly.
Write the reference answer — what a correct response looks like, and the technical reasoning for why.
This domain lives on the dual-use line more than most. The same toxicology that sets a countermeasure dose describes an exposure someone might intend; the same decontamination data that protects responders tells you what defeats it. A model that refuses a routine countermeasure or PPE question is failing as badly as one that answers a question it shouldn't. Drawing that line reliably is why we need practitioners rather than generalists.
Background we're looking for
We're looking for people who have worked chemical threats from the defensive side in an institutional setting — countermeasures, protection, detection, verification. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same agent properties that drive a treatment protocol drive a threat assessment. You will be writing prompts that sit exactly on that line, then judging whether the model held it.
Examples of relevant backgrounds (ideally with red-teaming experience):
Chemical defence research at USAMRICD, DoD, CDC or an allied national institute
Toxicology of chemical warfare agents and medical countermeasure development
Decontamination, protection and detection research for chemical threats
CWC-related work — verification, destruction, designated laboratory analysis
Consequence assessment and medical management of chemical exposure
What this role demands beyond technical depth
This is writing-intensive work. Every judgment you make needs a written rationale that a non-specialist can follow. Prior technical writing, published research, or expert witness experience is a strong signal; please include a sample or link. You will also be reading and writing about misuse scenarios in your field for sustained periods. We brief experts on this in advance, and you can pause or step away at any point without penalty.
Before you apply
Your work here will not involve, and must not draw on, classified or export-controlled information, or anything covered by an NDA or prepublication review obligation. If you hold such obligations you may still be a good fit; tell us in your application and we will scope the work accordingly.
We consider all qualified applicants without regard to legally protected characteristics and provide reasonable accommodations upon request.
About Mercor: Synthetic / Process ChemistCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://t.mercor.com/rSk1PAbout the work
Mercor is assembling a panel of chemistry and chemical safety experts to red-team frontier AI models. The goal is to test whether a model can correctly judge the misuse potential of a technical request — answering legitimate questions fully while refusing genuinely dangerous ones.
You will:
Write challenging single-turn prompts in your domain, labelled across three levels: benign, dual-use, and adversarial.
Evaluate the responses that come back against a defined policy standard, and judge whether each was handled correctly.
Write the reference answer — what a correct response looks like, and the technical reasoning for why.
This domain lives on the dual-use line more than most. The same route design that scales a medicine underpins a controlled compound; the same impurity profile that proves a clean process identifies how something was made. A model that refuses a routine scale-up or kinetics question is failing as badly as one that answers a question it shouldn't. Drawing that line reliably is why we need practitioners rather than generalists.
Background we're looking for
We're looking for chemists who have actually run routes and scaled them — bench to pilot to plant — and who know which requests are ordinary process chemistry and which are asking for something else. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same route knowledge that shortens a synthesis serves whoever is shortening it. You will be writing prompts that sit exactly on that line, then judging whether the model held it.
Examples of relevant backgrounds (ideally with red-teaming experience):
Synthetic route design and development in pharmaceutical, agrochemical or fine chemicals
Process chemistry and reaction engineering — optimisation, kinetics, impurity control
Scale-up from bench to pilot to plant, with the safety review that goes with it
Precursor sourcing, controlled-substance registration or regulatory chemistry
Method development and troubleshooting in a GMP or equivalent quality environment
What this role demands beyond technical depth
This is writing-intensive work. Every judgment you make needs a written rationale that a non-specialist can follow. Prior technical writing, published research, or expert witness experience is a strong signal; please include a sample or link. You will also be reading and writing about misuse scenarios in your field for sustained periods. We brief experts on this in advance, and you can pause or step away at any point without penalty.
Before you apply
Your work here will not involve, and must not draw on, classified or export-controlled information, or anything covered by an NDA or prepublication review obligation. If you hold such obligations you may still be a good fit; tell us in your application and we will scope the work accordingly.
We consider all qualified applicants without regard to legally protected characteristics and provide reasonable accommodations upon request.
About Mercor: Analytical ChemistCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://t.mercor.com/5MwVIAbout the work
Mercor is assembling a panel of chemistry and chemical safety experts to red-team frontier AI models. The goal is to test whether a model can correctly judge the misuse potential of a technical request — answering legitimate questions fully while refusing genuinely dangerous ones.
You will:
Write challenging single-turn prompts in your domain, labelled across three levels: benign, dual-use, and adversarial.
Evaluate the responses that come back against a defined policy standard, and judge whether each was handled correctly.
Write the reference answer — what a correct response looks like, and the technical reasoning for why.
This domain lives on the dual-use line more than most. The same method that detects a hazardous compound at trace level defines the threshold someone would try to stay beneath; the same library entry that identifies an unknown tells you what a screen will and won't see. A model that refuses a routine method-validation question is failing as badly as one that answers a question it shouldn't. Drawing that line reliably is why we need practitioners rather than generalists.
Background we're looking for
We're looking for analysts who have built and validated methods for hazardous compounds — people who know what a detection limit really means and what it implies. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same detection method that finds a compound describes how to evade the screen. You will be writing prompts that sit exactly on that line, then judging whether the model held it.
Examples of relevant backgrounds (ideally with red-teaming experience):
Detection and identification of hazardous compounds — GC-MS, LC-MS/MS, IR, NMR
Method development and validation for trace-level analysis
Environmental, occupational or emergency-response sampling and analysis
Reference standards, spectral libraries and unknown identification
Laboratory accreditation, QA/QC and proficiency testing
What this role demands beyond technical depth
This is writing-intensive work. Every judgment you make needs a written rationale that a non-specialist can follow. Prior technical writing, published research, or expert witness experience is a strong signal; please include a sample or link. You will also be reading and writing about misuse scenarios in your field for sustained periods. We brief experts on this in advance, and you can pause or step away at any point without penalty.
Before you apply
Your work here will not involve, and must not draw on, classified or export-controlled information, or anything covered by an NDA or prepublication review obligation. If you hold such obligations you may still be a good fit; tell us in your application and we will scope the work accordingly.
We consider all qualified applicants without regard to legally protected characteristics and provide reasonable accommodations upon request.
