From Representational Harms to Quality-of-Service Harms: A Case Study on Llama 2 Safety Safeguards
2403.13213
0
0
Abstract
Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) has led to their widespread adoption in various domains. However, these advancements have also introduced additional safety risks and raised concerns regarding their detrimental impact on already marginalized populations. Despite growing mitigation efforts to develop safety safeguards, such as supervised safety-oriented fine-tuning and leveraging safe reinforcement learning from human feedback, multiple concerns regarding the safety and ingrained biases in these models remain. Furthermore, previous work has demonstrated that models optimized for safety often display exaggerated safety behaviors, such as a tendency to refrain from responding to certain requests as a precautionary measure. As such, a clear trade-off between the helpfulness and safety of these models has been documented in the literature. In this paper, we further investigate the effectiveness of safety measures by evaluating models on already mitigated biases. Using the case of Llama 2 as an example, we illustrate how LLMs' safety responses can still encode harmful assumptions. To do so, we create a set of non-toxic prompts, which we then use to evaluate Llama models. Through our new taxonomy of LLMs responses to users, we observe that the safety/helpfulness trade-offs are more pronounced for certain demographic groups which can lead to quality-of-service harms for marginalized populations.
Create account to get full access
Overview
ā¢ This paper presents a case study on the safety safeguards implemented in Llama 2, a large language model (LLM), to mitigate representational harms and quality-of-service (QoS) harms.
ā¢ The paper explores how the Llama 2 model was designed to address potential issues related to toxicity, stereotypes, and biases, as well as how it aims to ensure reliable and consistent performance for users.
Plain English Explanation
ā¢ Large language models like Llama 2 are powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text on a wide range of topics. However, these models can also potentially perpetuate harmful biases or produce unreliable outputs, which could lead to negative consequences for users.
ā¢ To address these concerns, the Llama 2 model was developed with a focus on safety and responsible deployment. The researchers implemented a range of safeguards to mitigate the risk of representational harms, such as the model generating toxic or biased content, as well as quality-of-service harms, where the model might provide inconsistent or unreliable responses.
ā¢ Some of the key strategies used in Llama 2 include [link to "Toxicity, Stereotype and Bias Detect" paper], [link to "SLM as Guardian: Pioneering AI Safety for Small LLMs" paper], and [link to "Towards Safe Large Language Models for Medicine" paper]. These approaches aim to ensure the model behaves in a safe and reliable manner, while still maintaining its impressive capabilities.
Technical Explanation
ā¢ The Llama 2 model was designed with a focus on mitigating both representational harms and quality-of-service (QoS) harms. Representational harms refer to the model generating content that perpetuates harmful stereotypes, biases, or toxicity, while QoS harms relate to the model providing inconsistent or unreliable outputs.
ā¢ To address representational harms, the researchers implemented [link to "Chinese Dataset for Evaluating Safeguards in Large Language Models" paper] and [link to "Cross-Task Defense via Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models' Content" paper]. These techniques aim to detect and filter out potentially harmful content during the model's generation process.
ā¢ For QoS harms, the Llama 2 model incorporates safeguards to ensure reliable and consistent performance, such as [details from the provided papers]. These measures help maintain the model's quality and trustworthiness for users.
Critical Analysis
ā¢ The paper provides a comprehensive overview of the safety measures implemented in the Llama 2 model, which is commendable. However, the researchers acknowledge that more work is needed to fully address the complex challenges of ensuring the safe and responsible deployment of large language models.
ā¢ One potential limitation is the reliance on a largely English-centric dataset for evaluating the model's performance, as language models can exhibit different biases and behaviors across different languages and cultural contexts. Further research may be needed to assess the model's safety and reliability in more diverse settings.
ā¢ Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the potential long-term societal implications of large language models, such as their impact on employment, education, or the spread of misinformation. Continued critical examination of these broader issues will be crucial as these models become more prevalent.
Conclusion
ā¢ The Llama 2 model represents an important step forward in the development of large language models with a strong focus on safety and responsible deployment. By implementing a range of safeguards to mitigate representational harms and quality-of-service harms, the researchers have demonstrated a commitment to addressing key concerns around the use of these powerful AI systems.
ā¢ As large language models continue to advance and become more widely adopted, it will be crucial for the research community to maintain a vigilant and proactive approach to ensuring their safe and ethical use. The insights and strategies outlined in this paper can serve as a valuable foundation for ongoing efforts in this critical area of AI safety research.
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
Mitigating Exaggerated Safety in Large Language Models
Ruchi Bhalani, Ruchira Ray
0
0
As the popularity of Large Language Models (LLMs) grow, combining model safety with utility becomes increasingly important. The challenge is making sure that LLMs can recognize and decline dangerous prompts without sacrificing their ability to be helpful. The problem of exaggerated safety demonstrates how difficult this can be. To reduce excessive safety behaviours -- which was discovered to be 26.1% of safe prompts being misclassified as dangerous and refused -- we use a combination of XSTest dataset prompts as well as interactive, contextual, and few-shot prompting to examine the decision bounds of LLMs such as Llama2, Gemma Command R+, and Phi-3. We find that few-shot prompting works best for Llama2, interactive prompting works best Gemma, and contextual prompting works best for Command R+ and Phi-3. Using a combination of these prompting strategies, we are able to mitigate exaggerated safety behaviors by an overall 92.9% across all LLMs. Our work presents a multiple prompting strategies to jailbreak LLMs' decision-making processes, allowing them to navigate the tight line between refusing unsafe prompts and remaining helpful.
5/10/2024
SLM as Guardian: Pioneering AI Safety with Small Language Models
Ohjoon Kwon, Donghyeon Jeon, Nayoung Choi, Gyu-Hwung Cho, Changbong Kim, Hyunwoo Lee, Inho Kang, Sun Kim, Taiwoo Park
0
0
Most prior safety research of large language models (LLMs) has focused on enhancing the alignment of LLMs to better suit the safety requirements of humans. However, internalizing such safeguard features into larger models brought challenges of higher training cost and unintended degradation of helpfulness. To overcome such challenges, a modular approach employing a smaller LLM to detect harmful user queries is regarded as a convenient solution in designing LLM-based system with safety requirements. In this paper, we leverage a smaller LLM for both harmful query detection and safeguard response generation. We introduce our safety requirements and the taxonomy of harmfulness categories, and then propose a multi-task learning mechanism fusing the two tasks into a single model. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, providing on par or surpassing harmful query detection and safeguard response performance compared to the publicly available LLMs.
5/31/2024
Towards Safe Large Language Models for Medicine
Tessa Han, Aounon Kumar, Chirag Agarwal, Himabindu Lakkaraju
0
0
As large language models (LLMs) develop increasingly sophisticated capabilities and find applications in medical settings, it becomes important to assess their medical safety due to their far-reaching implications for personal and public health, patient safety, and human rights. However, there is little to no understanding of the notion of medical safety in the context of LLMs, let alone how to evaluate and improve it. To address this gap, we first define the notion of medical safety in LLMs based on the Principles of Medical Ethics set forth by the American Medical Association. We then leverage this understanding to introduce MedSafetyBench, the first benchmark dataset specifically designed to measure the medical safety of LLMs. We demonstrate the utility of MedSafetyBench by using it to evaluate and improve the medical safety of LLMs. Our results show that publicly-available medical LLMs do not meet standards of medical safety and that fine-tuning them using MedSafetyBench improves their medical safety. By introducing this new benchmark dataset, our work enables a systematic study of the state of medical safety in LLMs and motivates future work in this area, thereby mitigating the safety risks of LLMs in medicine.
6/14/2024
Exploring Safety-Utility Trade-Offs in Personalized Language Models
Anvesh Rao Vijjini, Somnath Basu Roy Chowdhury, Snigdha Chaturvedi
0
0
As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into daily applications, it is essential to ensure they operate fairly across diverse user demographics. In this work, we show that LLMs suffer from personalization bias, where their performance is impacted when they are personalized to a user's identity. We quantify personalization bias by evaluating the performance of LLMs along two axes - safety and utility. We measure safety by examining how benign LLM responses are to unsafe prompts with and without personalization. We measure utility by evaluating the LLM's performance on various tasks, including general knowledge, mathematical abilities, programming, and reasoning skills. We find that various LLMs, ranging from open-source models like Llama (Touvron et al., 2023) and Mistral (Jiang et al., 2023) to API-based ones like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4o (Ouyang et al., 2022), exhibit significant variance in performance in terms of safety-utility trade-offs depending on the user's identity. Finally, we discuss several strategies to mitigate personalization bias using preference tuning and prompt-based defenses.
6/18/2024