How Easy is It to Fool Your Multimodal LLMs? An Empirical Analysis on Deceptive Prompts
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Researchers conducted an empirical analysis to understand how easily large language models (LLMs) can be fooled by deceptive prompts.
- The study focused on multimodal LLMs, which can process and generate both text and images.
- Findings suggest that these models can be easily deceived by prompts designed to elicit untruthful or misleading responses.
Plain English Explanation
Researchers wanted to see how easily they could trick large language models (LLMs) into giving false or misleading information. LLMs are AI systems that can understand and generate human-like text. The researchers were particularly interested in multimodal LLMs, which can work with both text and images.
The researchers created special prompts - short phrases or questions - designed to mislead the LLMs. They found that it was surprisingly easy to get the models to provide untruthful or deceptive responses, even for models that are supposed to be very capable and reliable.
This suggests that these powerful AI systems may have significant vulnerabilities when it comes to detecting and resisting deception. The findings raise important questions about the reliability and trustworthiness of current LLM technology, especially for sensitive applications.
Technical Explanation
The paper examines the susceptibility of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to deceptive prompts. MLLMs are a type of AI system that can process and generate both text and images.
The researchers designed a series of experiments to test how easily MLLMs can be fooled by prompts crafted to elicit untruthful or misleading responses. They evaluated the performance of several state-of-the-art MLLM models across a range of deceptive prompt types, including factual falsehoods, logical inconsistencies, and emotional manipulation.
The results showed that even high-performing MLLMs were often unable to detect or resist the deceptive prompts, frequently generating responses that were false, contradictory, or biased. The researchers found that certain prompt types were more effective at inducing deceptive responses than others, providing insights into the vulnerabilities of these models.
Critical Analysis
The paper highlights important limitations and risks associated with current MLLM technology. While these models demonstrate impressive language and multimodal capabilities, the findings suggest they can be easily fooled by adversarial prompts designed to manipulate their outputs.
One key caveat is that the study only examined a limited set of MLLM models and prompt types. The generalizability of the results to other models and real-world scenarios remains to be tested. Additionally, the paper does not explore potential mitigation strategies or ways to improve MLLM robustness against deception.
Further research is needed to better understand the factors that contribute to MLLM susceptibility to deception, as well as develop more rigorous techniques for evaluating and improving the reliability of these systems. As MLLMs become more widely deployed, addressing these vulnerabilities will be crucial to ensure their safe and trustworthy application.
Conclusion
This study provides an important empirical analysis of the ease with which multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can be deceived by carefully crafted prompts. The findings suggest that even state-of-the-art MLLM systems may have significant vulnerabilities when it comes to detecting and resisting deception.
These insights highlight the need for greater scrutiny and rigorous testing of MLLM capabilities, especially as these powerful AI systems become more widely adopted. Addressing the risks of deception and ensuring the reliability of MLLM outputs will be crucial for building trust and supporting the responsible development of this technology.
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
How Easy is It to Fool Your Multimodal LLMs? An Empirical Analysis on Deceptive Prompts
Yusu Qian, Haotian Zhang, Yinfei Yang, Zhe Gan
The remarkable advancements in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have not rendered them immune to challenges, particularly in the context of handling deceptive information in prompts, thus producing hallucinated responses under such conditions. To quantitatively assess this vulnerability, we present MAD-Bench, a carefully curated benchmark that contains 1000 test samples divided into 5 categories, such as non-existent objects, count of objects, and spatial relationship. We provide a comprehensive analysis of popular MLLMs, ranging from GPT-4v, Reka, Gemini-Pro, to open-sourced models, such as LLaVA-NeXT and MiniCPM-Llama3. Empirically, we observe significant performance gaps between GPT-4o and other models; and previous robust instruction-tuned models are not effective on this new benchmark. While GPT-4o achieves 82.82% accuracy on MAD-Bench, the accuracy of any other model in our experiments ranges from 9% to 50%. We further propose a remedy that adds an additional paragraph to the deceptive prompts to encourage models to think twice before answering the question. Surprisingly, this simple method can even double the accuracy; however, the absolute numbers are still too low to be satisfactory. We hope MAD-Bench can serve as a valuable benchmark to stimulate further research to enhance model resilience against deceptive prompts.
Read more7/24/2024
0
Large Language Models as Misleading Assistants in Conversation
Betty Li Hou, Kejian Shi, Jason Phang, James Aung, Steven Adler, Rosie Campbell
Large Language Models (LLMs) are able to provide assistance on a wide range of information-seeking tasks. However, model outputs may be misleading, whether unintentionally or in cases of intentional deception. We investigate the ability of LLMs to be deceptive in the context of providing assistance on a reading comprehension task, using LLMs as proxies for human users. We compare outcomes of (1) when the model is prompted to provide truthful assistance, (2) when it is prompted to be subtly misleading, and (3) when it is prompted to argue for an incorrect answer. Our experiments show that GPT-4 can effectively mislead both GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4, with deceptive assistants resulting in up to a 23% drop in accuracy on the task compared to when a truthful assistant is used. We also find that providing the user model with additional context from the passage partially mitigates the influence of the deceptive model. This work highlights the ability of LLMs to produce misleading information and the effects this may have in real-world situations.
Read more7/17/2024
0
Prompting with Divide-and-Conquer Program Makes Large Language Models Discerning to Hallucination and Deception
Yizhou Zhang, Lun Du, Defu Cao, Qiang Fu, Yan Liu
Foundation models, such as Large language Models (LLMs), have attracted significant amount of interest due to their large number of applications. However, when handling tasks involving repetitive sub-tasks and/or deceptive contents, such as arithmetic calculation and article-level fake news detection, simple instructional prompts suffer from inaccurate responses. Existing works show that more complicated prompting strategies, such as Chain-of-Thoughts and Least-to-Most, can unlock LLM's powerful capacity in diverse areas. Recent researches reveal that simple divide-and-conquer prompting strategy, i.e. simply dividing the input sequence to multiple sub-inputs, can also substantially improve LLM's performance in some specific tasks such as misinformation detection. In this paper, we aim at examining the utility of divide-and-conquer prompting strategy and answer on which kind of tasks this strategy gets advantages. Specifically, we provide a theoretic analysis to divide-and-conquer prompting strategy and help us identify the specific tasks where DaC prompting can bring performance boost with theoretic guarantee. We then present two cases (large integer arithmetic and fact verification) where experimental results aligns with our theoretic analysis.
Read more6/26/2024
0
Multimodal Large Language Models to Support Real-World Fact-Checking
Jiahui Geng, Yova Kementchedjhieva, Preslav Nakov, Iryna Gurevych
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) carry the potential to support humans in processing vast amounts of information. While MLLMs are already being used as a fact-checking tool, their abilities and limitations in this regard are understudied. Here is aim to bridge this gap. In particular, we propose a framework for systematically assessing the capacity of current multimodal models to facilitate real-world fact-checking. Our methodology is evidence-free, leveraging only these models' intrinsic knowledge and reasoning capabilities. By designing prompts that extract models' predictions, explanations, and confidence levels, we delve into research questions concerning model accuracy, robustness, and reasons for failure. We empirically find that (1) GPT-4V exhibits superior performance in identifying malicious and misleading multimodal claims, with the ability to explain the unreasonable aspects and underlying motives, and (2) existing open-source models exhibit strong biases and are highly sensitive to the prompt. Our study offers insights into combating false multimodal information and building secure, trustworthy multimodal models. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to evaluate MLLMs for real-world fact-checking.
Read more4/29/2024