Multitask Mayhem: Unveiling and Mitigating Safety Gaps in LLMs Fine-tuning
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Uncover and address safety issues in large language models (LLMs) during fine-tuning
- Identify risks of multitask fine-tuning, where models are trained on multiple tasks simultaneously
- Propose methods to mitigate these safety gaps and improve LLM robustness
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 are powerful tools that can be fine-tuned, or further trained, on specific tasks. However, this fine-tuning process can introduce new safety risks, especially when models are trained on multiple tasks at once (known as "multitask fine-tuning").
The paper explores these safety gaps in multitask fine-tuning and proposes ways to address them. For example, the authors find that fine-tuning an LLM on certain combinations of tasks can lead to the model generating harmful or biased content, even if the individual tasks are benign.
To mitigate these risks, the researchers suggest techniques like "cross-task defense" - where the model is trained to be more robust across diverse tasks - and "mimicking user data" - which aims to make the fine-tuning dataset more representative of real-world use cases.
By addressing these safety gaps, the goal is to make LLMs more reliable and trustworthy as they are deployed in real-world applications.
Technical Explanation
The paper first identifies several safety risks that can arise during multitask fine-tuning of LLMs. Through a series of experiments, the authors demonstrate how fine-tuning on certain combinations of tasks (e.g. language modeling and hate speech detection) can lead to the model generating harmful, biased, or unsafe content, even if the individual tasks are benign.
To mitigate these risks, the researchers propose several techniques:
-
Cross-task defense: Training the model to be more robust across a diverse set of tasks, rather than optimizing for individual tasks.
-
Mimicking user data: Curating the fine-tuning dataset to better reflect real-world use cases and prevent the model from overfitting to biases in the training data.
-
Safety fine-tuning at almost no cost: A lightweight fine-tuning approach that can improve model safety without significantly impacting performance.
The paper also provides a "mechanistic" analysis of the factors that contribute to safety issues in multitask fine-tuning, offering insights into the inner workings of these models.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a valuable contribution by systematically investigating safety risks in multitask fine-tuning of LLMs, an important and under-explored area. The proposed mitigation techniques, such as cross-task defense and mimicking user data, seem promising and warrant further research and real-world testing.
However, the paper also acknowledges several limitations. The analysis is primarily focused on a specific set of tasks and model architectures, and the authors note that safety gaps may manifest differently in other contexts. Additionally, the mechanistic analysis provides insights, but does not offer a complete explanation for the observed safety issues.
Further research is needed to fully understand the underlying causes of these safety gaps and to develop more robust and generalizable solutions. Careful consideration of potential negative societal impacts, as well as continued collaboration between AI researchers, developers, and ethicists, will be crucial as these techniques are refined and deployed in real-world applications.
Conclusion
This paper sheds light on important safety considerations in the fine-tuning of large language models, particularly when training on multiple tasks simultaneously. By identifying key risks and proposing mitigation strategies, the authors take an important step towards making LLMs more reliable and trustworthy.
As these powerful AI systems become more widespread, addressing safety and ethical concerns will be critical to ensuring they are deployed in a responsible and beneficial manner. The insights and techniques presented in this paper contribute to this ongoing effort to develop safe and robust language AI.
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
Multitask Mayhem: Unveiling and Mitigating Safety Gaps in LLMs Fine-tuning
Essa Jan, Nouar AlDahoul, Moiz Ali, Faizan Ahmad, Fareed Zaffar, Yasir Zaki
Recent breakthroughs in Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to their adoption across a wide range of tasks, ranging from code generation to machine translation and sentiment analysis, etc. Red teaming/Safety alignment efforts show that fine-tuning models on benign (non-harmful) data could compromise safety. However, it remains unclear to what extent this phenomenon is influenced by different variables, including fine-tuning task, model calibrations, etc. This paper explores the task-wise safety degradation due to fine-tuning on downstream tasks such as summarization, code generation, translation, and classification across various calibration. Our results reveal that: 1) Fine-tuning LLMs for code generation and translation leads to the highest degradation in safety guardrails. 2) LLMs generally have weaker guardrails for translation and classification, with 73-92% of harmful prompts answered, across baseline and other calibrations, falling into one of two concern categories. 3) Current solutions, including guards and safety tuning datasets, lack cross-task robustness. To address these issues, we developed a new multitask safety dataset effectively reducing attack success rates across a range of tasks without compromising the model's overall helpfulness. Our work underscores the need for generalized alignment measures to ensure safer and more robust models.
Read more9/25/2024
0
Cross-Task Defense: Instruction-Tuning LLMs for Content Safety
Yu Fu, Wen Xiao, Jia Chen, Jiachen Li, Evangelos Papalexakis, Aichi Chien, Yue Dong
Recent studies reveal that Large Language Models (LLMs) face challenges in balancing safety with utility, particularly when processing long texts for NLP tasks like summarization and translation. Despite defenses against malicious short questions, the ability of LLMs to safely handle dangerous long content, such as manuals teaching illicit activities, remains unclear. Our work aims to develop robust defenses for LLMs in processing malicious documents alongside benign NLP task queries. We introduce a defense dataset comprised of safety-related examples and propose single-task and mixed-task losses for instruction tuning. Our empirical results demonstrate that LLMs can significantly enhance their capacity to safely manage dangerous content with appropriate instruction tuning. Additionally, strengthening the defenses of tasks most susceptible to misuse is effective in protecting LLMs against processing harmful information. We also observe that trade-offs between utility and safety exist in defense strategies, where Llama2, utilizing our proposed approach, displays a significantly better balance compared to Llama1.
Read more5/27/2024
💬
0
Mimicking User Data: On Mitigating Fine-Tuning Risks in Closed Large Language Models
Francisco Eiras, Aleksandar Petrov, Phillip H. S. Torr, M. Pawan Kumar, Adel Bibi
Fine-tuning large language models on small, high-quality datasets can enhance their performance on specific downstream tasks. Recent research shows that fine-tuning on benign, instruction-following data can inadvertently undo the safety alignment process and increase a model's propensity to comply with harmful queries. Although critical, understanding and mitigating safety risks in well-defined tasks remains distinct from the instruction-following context due to structural differences in the data. Our work addresses the gap in our understanding of these risks across diverse types of data in closed models - where providers control how user data is utilized in the fine-tuning process. We demonstrate how malicious actors can subtly manipulate the structure of almost any task-specific dataset to foster significantly more dangerous model behaviors, while maintaining an appearance of innocuity and reasonable downstream task performance. To address this issue, we propose a novel mitigation strategy that mixes in safety data which mimics the task format and prompting style of the user data, showing this is more effective than existing baselines at re-establishing safety alignment while maintaining similar task performance.
Read more7/2/2024
🔍
0
What Makes and Breaks Safety Fine-tuning? Mechanistic Study
Samyak Jain, Ekdeep Singh Lubana, Kemal Oksuz, Tom Joy, Philip H. S. Torr, Amartya Sanyal, Puneet K. Dokania
Safety fine-tuning helps align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences for their safe deployment. To better understand the underlying factors that make models safe via safety fine-tuning, we design a synthetic data generation framework that captures salient aspects of an unsafe input by modeling the interaction between the task the model is asked to perform (e.g., design) versus the specific concepts the task is asked to be performed upon (e.g., a cycle vs. a bomb). Using this, we investigate three well-known safety fine-tuning methods -- supervised safety fine-tuning, direct preference optimization, and unlearning -- and provide significant evidence demonstrating that these methods minimally transform MLP weights to specifically align unsafe inputs into its weights' null space. This yields a clustering of inputs based on whether the model deems them safe or not. Correspondingly, when an adversarial input (e.g., a jailbreak) is provided, its activations are closer to safer samples, leading to the model processing such an input as if it were safe. We validate our findings, wherever possible, on real-world models -- specifically, Llama-2 7B and Llama-3 8B.
Read more8/22/2024