Mitigating Exaggerated Safety in Large Language Models
2405.05418
0
0
Abstract
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the issue of "exaggerated safety" in large language models (LLMs), where the models may overestimate the safety or reliability of their outputs.
- The authors propose an approach to mitigate this issue by training LLMs to better recognize and communicate the limitations and uncertainties of their responses.
- The research aims to improve the transparency and calibration of LLM safety, making users more aware of the models' capabilities and limitations.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text on a wide range of topics. However, there's a concern that these models may sometimes overstate how safe or reliable their outputs are. This is known as "exaggerated safety."
The researchers in this paper wanted to address this problem. They developed a new way to train LLMs to be more transparent about their limitations and uncertainties. The idea is to make users more aware of what the models can and can't do, so they don't blindly trust the outputs without understanding the full context.
For example, an LLM might be able to write an essay on a complex topic, but it may not fully grasp all the nuances and potential risks involved. The model could falsely give the impression that it's providing a completely reliable and safe analysis. This new approach aims to prevent that by teaching the LLM to explicitly communicate its own uncertainties and caveats.
By making LLMs more calibrated and transparent about their safety, the researchers hope to improve trust and appropriate use of these powerful AI systems. This could be especially important in high-stakes domains like medicine or finance, where overconfident AI outputs could have serious consequences.
Technical Explanation
The key elements of the paper's technical approach include:
-
Uncertainty Modeling: The authors propose training LLMs to estimate the uncertainty of their own outputs, allowing them to better communicate the limitations of their responses. This involves adding uncertainty prediction as an auxiliary task during LLM pretraining.
-
Safety Prompts: The paper introduces "safety prompts" - specialized prompts that encourage LLMs to explicitly discuss the safety, reliability, and potential risks of their generated text. This helps the models develop a more calibrated sense of their capabilities.
-
Adversarial Safety Evaluation: To test the effectiveness of their approach, the researchers develop an "adversarial safety evaluation" framework. This involves probing the LLMs with prompts designed to elicit overconfident or unsafe responses, and measuring how well the models are able to identify and mitigate these issues.
The experiments compare LLMs trained with and without the proposed uncertainty modeling and safety prompts. The results show that the new approach significantly improves the models' ability to recognize and communicate their own limitations, leading to more transparent and well-calibrated safety estimates.
Critical Analysis
The paper offers a valuable contribution by addressing an important challenge in the development of safe and trustworthy LLMs. The proposed techniques for uncertainty modeling and safety prompts seem promising, and the adversarial safety evaluation framework provides a useful way to rigorously test the models' capabilities.
However, the paper does not fully explore the potential limitations or edge cases of this approach. For example, it's unclear how the models would perform on highly complex or ambiguous prompts that push the boundaries of their knowledge and capabilities. There may also be challenges in scaling these techniques to the largest, most capable LLMs currently in development.
Additionally, the paper focuses primarily on the technical aspects of the solution, without delving into potential societal implications or broader ethical considerations around the use of LLMs. As these models become more advanced and widely deployed, it will be important to consider the broader impact on areas like transparency, accountability, and algorithmic bias.
Overall, this paper provides a solid foundation for improving the safety and transparency of LLMs, but further research and real-world testing will be needed to fully understand the strengths and limitations of this approach.
Conclusion
This paper tackles the important issue of "exaggerated safety" in large language models, where the models may give users a false sense of confidence in their outputs. The proposed approach of training LLMs to better recognize and communicate their own limitations and uncertainties is a valuable step towards more transparent and trustworthy AI systems.
By improving the calibration of LLM safety estimates, this research could have significant implications for the responsible development and deployment of these powerful technologies, particularly in high-stakes domains like medicine, finance, and policy. As LLMs continue to advance, maintaining a clear understanding of their capabilities and constraints will be crucial for ensuring they are used safely and ethically.
The techniques introduced in this paper, such as uncertainty modeling and safety prompts, provide a promising framework for further research and real-world applications. However, ongoing scrutiny and a holistic consideration of the societal impacts of LLMs will be essential as these technologies continue to evolve and become more ubiquitous.
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
From Representational Harms to Quality-of-Service Harms: A Case Study on Llama 2 Safety Safeguards
Khaoula Chehbouni, Megha Roshan, Emmanuel Ma, Futian Andrew Wei, Afaf Taik, Jackie CK Cheung, Golnoosh Farnadi
0
0
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.
6/11/2024
š¬
A Chinese Dataset for Evaluating the Safeguards in Large Language Models
Yuxia Wang, Zenan Zhai, Haonan Li, Xudong Han, Lizhi Lin, Zhenxuan Zhang, Jingru Zhao, Preslav Nakov, Timothy Baldwin
0
0
Many studies have demonstrated that large language models (LLMs) can produce harmful responses, exposing users to unexpected risks when LLMs are deployed. Previous studies have proposed comprehensive taxonomies of the risks posed by LLMs, as well as corresponding prompts that can be used to examine the safety mechanisms of LLMs. However, the focus has been almost exclusively on English, and little has been explored for other languages. Here we aim to bridge this gap. We first introduce a dataset for the safety evaluation of Chinese LLMs, and then extend it to two other scenarios that can be used to better identify false negative and false positive examples in terms of risky prompt rejections. We further present a set of fine-grained safety assessment criteria for each risk type, facilitating both manual annotation and automatic evaluation in terms of LLM response harmfulness. Our experiments on five LLMs show that region-specific risks are the prevalent type of risk, presenting the major issue with all Chinese LLMs we experimented with. Our data is available at https://github.com/Libr-AI/do-not-answer. Warning: this paper contains example data that may be offensive, harmful, or biased.
5/28/2024
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
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