Cross-Modal Safety Alignment: Is textual unlearning all you need?
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This research paper explores the effectiveness of "textual unlearning" as a safety alignment method for cross-modal (vision-language) AI models.
- The authors investigate whether removing harmful text from the training data is sufficient to ensure the safety of these models, or if additional techniques are required.
- The paper compares textual unlearning to alternative approaches, such as machine unlearning and rethinking machine unlearning, and examines their trade-offs.
Plain English Explanation
As AI models become more advanced, it's crucial that they are "aligned" with human values and safety considerations. This means ensuring the models behave in a way that is beneficial and does not cause harm. One approach to achieving this is "textual unlearning," which involves removing harmful or dangerous information from the data used to train the models.
The researchers in this paper wanted to see if textual unlearning is sufficient on its own to ensure the safety of cross-modal AI models, which can process both text and visual information. They compared textual unlearning to other techniques, like machine unlearning and rethinking machine unlearning, to understand the trade-offs between these approaches.
The key question the paper aims to answer is: is removing harmful text from the training data all that's needed to make these AI models safe, or are additional steps required? The findings could have important implications for how we develop and deploy AI systems in the future.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of textual unlearning for safety alignment in cross-modal AI models. They compared textual unlearning to alternative approaches, such as To Each Textual Sequence Its Own: Improving Language Model Unlearning and Single-Image Unlearning: Efficient Machine Unlearning for Multimodal Models.
The experiments involved training cross-modal models on datasets with varying levels of harmful content, then applying textual unlearning or other techniques to remove the unwanted information. The researchers evaluated the models' safety and performance on a range of tasks, including language generation, image captioning, and safety-critical applications.
The results suggest that while textual unlearning can be effective in some cases, it may not be sufficient on its own to ensure the safety of cross-modal AI models. The researchers found that additional techniques, such as rethinking machine unlearning, may be necessary to fully address safety concerns in these types of models.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough exploration of the challenges and trade-offs involved in using textual unlearning for safety alignment in cross-modal AI models. The authors acknowledge that textual unlearning may have limitations, as the visual and multimodal components of these models could still retain harmful information even after the textual data has been "unlearned."
One potential concern raised is the possibility of "negative transfer," where the unlearning of harmful text could inadvertently degrade the model's performance on other, non-harmful tasks. The paper also notes that the effectiveness of textual unlearning may depend on the specific dataset and model architecture used.
While the paper provides valuable insights, it also highlights the need for further research to develop more comprehensive and robust safety alignment techniques for cross-modal AI systems. Additional experiments and evaluations, particularly in real-world applications, could help shed more light on the limitations and best practices for ensuring the safety of these powerful technologies.
Conclusion
This research paper underscores the importance of developing effective safety alignment methods for cross-modal AI models. While textual unlearning may be a useful tool, the findings suggest that it may not be sufficient on its own to ensure the safety of these systems.
The paper highlights the need for a multi-faceted approach, potentially incorporating techniques like rethinking machine unlearning and single-image unlearning, to address the unique challenges posed by cross-modal AI.
As the development of AI continues to accelerate, it is crucial that researchers and developers work to ensure these powerful technologies are aligned with human values and safety concerns. The insights provided in this paper contribute to this important effort and suggest promising avenues for further exploration.
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
Cross-Modal Safety Alignment: Is textual unlearning all you need?
Trishna Chakraborty, Erfan Shayegani, Zikui Cai, Nael Abu-Ghazaleh, M. Salman Asif, Yue Dong, Amit K. Roy-Chowdhury, Chengyu Song
Recent studies reveal that integrating new modalities into Large Language Models (LLMs), such as Vision-Language Models (VLMs), creates a new attack surface that bypasses existing safety training techniques like Supervised Fine-tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF). While further SFT and RLHF-based safety training can be conducted in multi-modal settings, collecting multi-modal training datasets poses a significant challenge. Inspired by the structural design of recent multi-modal models, where, regardless of the combination of input modalities, all inputs are ultimately fused into the language space, we aim to explore whether unlearning solely in the textual domain can be effective for cross-modality safety alignment. Our evaluation across six datasets empirically demonstrates the transferability -- textual unlearning in VLMs significantly reduces the Attack Success Rate (ASR) to less than 8% and in some cases, even as low as nearly 2% for both text-based and vision-text-based attacks, alongside preserving the utility. Moreover, our experiments show that unlearning with a multi-modal dataset offers no potential benefits but incurs significantly increased computational demands, possibly up to 6 times higher.
Read more6/6/2024
👀
0
Safety Alignment for Vision Language Models
Zhendong Liu, Yuanbi Nie, Yingshui Tan, Xiangyu Yue, Qiushi Cui, Chongjun Wang, Xiaoyong Zhu, Bo Zheng
Benefiting from the powerful capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), pre-trained visual encoder models connected to an LLMs can realize Vision Language Models (VLMs). However, existing research shows that the visual modality of VLMs is vulnerable, with attackers easily bypassing LLMs' safety alignment through visual modality features to launch attacks. To address this issue, we enhance the existing VLMs' visual modality safety alignment by adding safety modules, including a safety projector, safety tokens, and a safety head, through a two-stage training process, effectively improving the model's defense against risky images. For example, building upon the LLaVA-v1.5 model, we achieve a safety score of 8.26, surpassing the GPT-4V on the Red Teaming Visual Language Models (RTVLM) benchmark. Our method boasts ease of use, high flexibility, and strong controllability, and it enhances safety while having minimal impact on the model's general performance. Moreover, our alignment strategy also uncovers some possible risky content within commonly used open-source multimodal datasets. Our code will be open sourced after the anonymous review.
Read more5/24/2024
0
New!CoCA: Regaining Safety-awareness of Multimodal Large Language Models with Constitutional Calibration
Jiahui Gao, Renjie Pi, Tianyang Han, Han Wu, Lanqing Hong, Lingpeng Kong, Xin Jiang, Zhenguo Li
The deployment of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) has demonstrated remarkable success in engaging in conversations involving visual inputs, thanks to the superior power of large language models (LLMs). Those MLLMs are typically built based on the LLMs, with an image encoder to process images into the token embedding space of the LLMs. However, the integration of visual modality has introduced a unique vulnerability: the MLLM becomes susceptible to malicious visual inputs and prone to generating sensitive or harmful responses, even though the LLM has been trained on textual dataset to align with human value. In this paper, we first raise the question: ``Do the MLLMs possess safety-awareness against malicious image inputs?. We find that after adding a principle that specifies the safety requirement into the input of the MLLM, the model's safety awareness becomes boosted. This phenomenon verifies the existence of MLLM's safety-awareness against image inputs, it is only weakened by the modality gap. We then introduce a simple yet effective technique termed CoCA, which amplifies the safety-awareness of the MLLM by calibrating its output distribution. Our proposed strategy helps the model reclaim its original safety awareness without losing its original capabilities. We verify the effectiveness of our approach on both multimodal safety and understanding benchmarks.
Read more9/18/2024
🛸
0
Cross-Modality Safety Alignment
Siyin Wang, Xingsong Ye, Qinyuan Cheng, Junwen Duan, Shimin Li, Jinlan Fu, Xipeng Qiu, Xuanjing Huang
As Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) becomes increasingly integrated into various facets of human life, ensuring the safety and ethical alignment of such systems is paramount. Previous studies primarily focus on single-modality threats, which may not suffice given the integrated and complex nature of cross-modality interactions. We introduce a novel safety alignment challenge called Safe Inputs but Unsafe Output (SIUO) to evaluate cross-modality safety alignment. Specifically, it considers cases where single modalities are safe independently but could potentially lead to unsafe or unethical outputs when combined. To empirically investigate this problem, we developed the SIUO, a cross-modality benchmark encompassing 9 critical safety domains, such as self-harm, illegal activities, and privacy violations. Our findings reveal substantial safety vulnerabilities in both closed- and open-source LVLMs, such as GPT-4V and LLaVA, underscoring the inadequacy of current models to reliably interpret and respond to complex, real-world scenarios.
Read more6/24/2024