Automatic Pseudo-Harmful Prompt Generation for Evaluating False Refusals in Large Language Models
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Paper proposes a method to automatically generate "pseudo-harmful" prompts to evaluate how large language models (LLMs) respond when asked to produce potentially harmful content
- Goal is to identify cases where LLMs falsely refuse to generate harmful outputs, which could indicate security vulnerabilities
- Approach involves defining different categories of prompts (harmless, controversial, harmful) and using machine learning to generate prompts that fit each category
- Experiments show the method can produce prompts that reliably elicit the desired responses from LLMs
Plain English Explanation
The paper focuses on evaluating the safety and security of large language models (LLMs) - AI systems trained on massive amounts of text data to understand and generate human-like language. Specifically, the researchers wanted to see how well LLMs could identify and refuse to produce potentially harmful or unethical content when prompted.
To do this, they developed a way to automatically generate "pseudo-harmful" prompts - phrases or instructions that don't actually contain harmful content, but are designed to test the LLM's response. The key idea is to create prompts that fall into different categories, ranging from completely harmless to potentially controversial or even harmful.
By using machine learning techniques, the researchers were able to generate prompts that reliably triggered the desired responses from the LLMs they tested. For example, a harmless prompt might be something like "Write a short story about a puppy playing in a park." A potentially harmful prompt could be "Describe how to make a homemade explosive device."
The goal was to identify cases where the LLM
Overall, the paper presents a novel approach to proactively testing the safety and security of LLMs, with the aim of identifying and addressing potential issues before they become problems in the real world.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes an "Automatic Pseudo-Harmful Prompt Generation" (APHPG) framework to systematically evaluate the safety and security of large language models (LLMs). The key idea is to automatically generate a diverse set of "pseudo-harmful" prompts - prompts that are not actually harmful, but are designed to test an LLM's ability to correctly identify and refuse to generate potentially harmful content.
The authors first define three categories of prompts:
- Harmless Prompts: Prompts that do not contain any harmful or unethical content.
- Controversial Prompts: Prompts that address sensitive topics or express opinions that some might find objectionable, but do not directly instruct the model to produce harmful content.
- Harmful Prompts: Prompts that directly instruct the model to produce harmful, illegal, or unethical content.
They then use machine learning techniques, including a adversarial training approach, to automatically generate prompts that reliably fall into each of these categories. The goal is to create a diverse set of prompts that can be used to systematically evaluate an LLM's response - specifically, to identify cases where the LLM
The authors evaluate their APHPG framework on several state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-3, InstructGPT, and Chinchilla. Their results show that the generated prompts can reliably elicit the desired responses from the LLMs, and that the models exhibit a range of behaviors when faced with potentially harmful prompts - some correctly refuse to generate harmful content, while others sometimes falsely refuse even benign prompts.
The authors argue that this framework can be a valuable tool for proactively identifying and addressing security vulnerabilities in LLMs, as well as for studying the ethical and safety considerations around the deployment of these powerful language models.
Critical Analysis
The key strength of this paper is the innovative approach to systematically testing the safety and security of LLMs. By automatically generating a diverse set of "pseudo-harmful" prompts, the researchers are able to evaluate LLM behavior in a controlled and reproducible way. This is a valuable contribution, as it allows for more rigorous testing and identification of potential vulnerabilities.
However, the paper does acknowledge some limitations of the approach. For example, the generated prompts may not fully capture the nuance and complexity of real-world harmful content, and the model's responses may not generalize to all possible scenarios. Additionally, the authors note that their evaluation is limited to textual prompts, and that the behavior of multimodal LLMs (which can process and generate images, videos, etc.) may differ.
Another potential concern is the ethical implications of generating and using "pseudo-harmful" prompts, even for research purposes. While the authors state that they took steps to ensure the generated prompts did not actually contain harmful content, there is still the risk of these prompts being misused or causing unintended harm.
Overall, the paper presents a novel and valuable approach to evaluating LLM safety and security. However, further research is needed to address the limitations and ethical considerations, as well as to expand the approach to other types of LLMs and modalities. Continued efforts in this direction are crucial for ensuring the responsible development and deployment of these powerful AI systems.
Conclusion
This paper proposes an innovative framework for automatically generating "pseudo-harmful" prompts to systematically evaluate the safety and security of large language models (LLMs). By defining different categories of prompts (harmless, controversial, harmful) and using machine learning techniques to generate prompts that reliably fit these categories, the researchers are able to identify cases where LLMs
The key contribution of this work is the development of a reproducible and scalable approach for proactively testing the ethical and security considerations around LLM deployment. This is an important step towards ensuring the responsible development of these powerful AI systems, as it allows researchers and developers to identify potential vulnerabilities before they become real-world problems.
While the paper acknowledges some limitations and ethical concerns, the overall framework presented here is a valuable tool for advancing the field of AI safety and security. Continued research in this direction, combined with a focus on responsible AI practices, will be crucial for realizing the full potential of large language models while mitigating the risks.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Automatic Pseudo-Harmful Prompt Generation for Evaluating False Refusals in Large Language Models
Bang An, Sicheng Zhu, Ruiyi Zhang, Michael-Andrei Panaitescu-Liess, Yuancheng Xu, Furong Huang
Safety-aligned large language models (LLMs) sometimes falsely refuse pseudo-harmful prompts, like how to kill a mosquito, which are actually harmless. Frequent false refusals not only frustrate users but also provoke a public backlash against the very values alignment seeks to protect. In this paper, we propose the first method to auto-generate diverse, content-controlled, and model-dependent pseudo-harmful prompts. Using this method, we construct an evaluation dataset called PHTest, which is ten times larger than existing datasets, covers more false refusal patterns, and separately labels controversial prompts. We evaluate 20 LLMs on PHTest, uncovering new insights due to its scale and labeling. Our findings reveal a trade-off between minimizing false refusals and improving safety against jailbreak attacks. Moreover, we show that many jailbreak defenses significantly increase the false refusal rates, thereby undermining usability. Our method and dataset can help developers evaluate and fine-tune safer and more usable LLMs. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/umd-huang-lab/FalseRefusal
Read more9/4/2024
0
Refusing Safe Prompts for Multi-modal Large Language Models
Zedian Shao, Hongbin Liu, Yuepeng Hu, Neil Zhenqiang Gong
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have become the cornerstone of today's generative AI ecosystem, sparking intense competition among tech giants and startups. In particular, an MLLM generates a text response given a prompt consisting of an image and a question. While state-of-the-art MLLMs use safety filters and alignment techniques to refuse unsafe prompts, in this work, we introduce MLLM-Refusal, the first method that induces refusals for safe prompts. In particular, our MLLM-Refusal optimizes a nearly-imperceptible refusal perturbation and adds it to an image, causing target MLLMs to likely refuse a safe prompt containing the perturbed image and a safe question. Specifically, we formulate MLLM-Refusal as a constrained optimization problem and propose an algorithm to solve it. Our method offers competitive advantages for MLLM model providers by potentially disrupting user experiences of competing MLLMs, since competing MLLM's users will receive unexpected refusals when they unwittingly use these perturbed images in their prompts. We evaluate MLLM-Refusal on four MLLMs across four datasets, demonstrating its effectiveness in causing competing MLLMs to refuse safe prompts while not affecting non-competing MLLMs. Furthermore, we explore three potential countermeasures-adding Gaussian noise, DiffPure, and adversarial training. Our results show that though they can mitigate MLLM-Refusal's effectiveness, they also sacrifice the accuracy and/or efficiency of the competing MLLM. The code is available at https://github.com/Sadcardation/MLLM-Refusal.
Read more9/9/2024
0
Don't Say No: Jailbreaking LLM by Suppressing Refusal
Yukai Zhou, Wenjie Wang
Ensuring the safety alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial to generating responses consistent with human values. Despite their ability to recognize and avoid harmful queries, LLMs are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks, where carefully crafted prompts elicit them to produce toxic content. One category of jailbreak attacks is reformulating the task as adversarial attacks by eliciting the LLM to generate an affirmative response. However, the typical attack in this category GCG has very limited attack success rate. In this study, to better study the jailbreak attack, we introduce the DSN (Don't Say No) attack, which prompts LLMs to not only generate affirmative responses but also novelly enhance the objective to suppress refusals. In addition, another challenge lies in jailbreak attacks is the evaluation, as it is difficult to directly and accurately assess the harmfulness of the attack. The existing evaluation such as refusal keyword matching has its own limitation as it reveals numerous false positive and false negative instances. To overcome this challenge, we propose an ensemble evaluation pipeline incorporating Natural Language Inference (NLI) contradiction assessment and two external LLM evaluators. Extensive experiments demonstrate the potency of the DSN and the effectiveness of ensemble evaluation compared to baseline methods.
Read more4/26/2024
💬
0
Do Anything Now: Characterizing and Evaluating In-The-Wild Jailbreak Prompts on Large Language Models
Xinyue Shen, Zeyuan Chen, Michael Backes, Yun Shen, Yang Zhang
The misuse of large language models (LLMs) has drawn significant attention from the general public and LLM vendors. One particular type of adversarial prompt, known as jailbreak prompt, has emerged as the main attack vector to bypass the safeguards and elicit harmful content from LLMs. In this paper, employing our new framework JailbreakHub, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of 1,405 jailbreak prompts spanning from December 2022 to December 2023. We identify 131 jailbreak communities and discover unique characteristics of jailbreak prompts and their major attack strategies, such as prompt injection and privilege escalation. We also observe that jailbreak prompts increasingly shift from online Web communities to prompt-aggregation websites and 28 user accounts have consistently optimized jailbreak prompts over 100 days. To assess the potential harm caused by jailbreak prompts, we create a question set comprising 107,250 samples across 13 forbidden scenarios. Leveraging this dataset, our experiments on six popular LLMs show that their safeguards cannot adequately defend jailbreak prompts in all scenarios. Particularly, we identify five highly effective jailbreak prompts that achieve 0.95 attack success rates on ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) and GPT-4, and the earliest one has persisted online for over 240 days. We hope that our study can facilitate the research community and LLM vendors in promoting safer and regulated LLMs.
Read more5/16/2024