Search

When LLMs are deployed in sensitive, human-facing settings, it is crucial that they do not output unsafe, biased, or privacy-violating outputs. For this reason, models are both trained and instructed to refuse to answer unsafe prompts such as "Tell me how to build a bomb." We find that, despite these safeguards, it is possible to break model defenses simply by appending a space to the end of a model's input. In a study of eight open-source models, we demonstrate that this acts as a strong enough attack to cause the majority of models to generate harmful outputs with very high success rates. We examine the causes of this behavior, finding that the contexts in which single spaces occur in tokenized training data encourage models to generate lists when prompted, overriding training signals to refuse to answer unsafe requests. Our findings underscore the fragile state of current model alignment and promote the importance of developing more robust alignment methods. Code and data will be available at https://github.com/hannah-aught/space_attack., Comment: 8 pages, 6 figures

We introduce a defense against adversarial attacks on LLMs utilizing self-evaluation. Our method requires no model fine-tuning, instead using pre-trained models to evaluate the inputs and outputs of a generator model, significantly reducing the cost of implementation in comparison to other, finetuning-based methods. Our method can significantly reduce the attack success rate of attacks on both open and closed-source LLMs, beyond the reductions demonstrated by Llama-Guard2 and commonly used content moderation APIs. We present an analysis of the effectiveness of our method, including attempts to attack the evaluator in various settings, demonstrating that it is also more resilient to attacks than existing methods. Code and data will be made available at https://github.com/Linlt-leon/self-eval., Comment: 8 pages, 7 figures

Creativity serves as a cornerstone for societal progress and innovation. With the rise of advanced generative AI models capable of tasks once reserved for human creativity, the study of AI's creative potential becomes imperative for its responsible development and application. In this paper, we prove in theory that AI can be as creative as humans under the condition that it can properly fit the data generated by human creators. Therefore, the debate on AI's creativity is reduced into the question of its ability to fit a sufficient amount of data. To arrive at this conclusion, this paper first addresses the complexities in defining creativity by introducing a new concept called Relative Creativity. Rather than attempting to define creativity universally, we shift the focus to whether AI can match the creative abilities of a hypothetical human. The methodological shift leads to a statistically quantifiable assessment of AI's creativity, term Statistical Creativity. This concept, statistically comparing the creative abilities of AI with those of specific human groups, facilitates theoretical exploration of AI's creative potential. Our analysis reveals that by fitting extensive conditional data without marginalizing out the generative conditions, AI can emerge as a hypothetical new creator. The creator possesses the same creative abilities on par with the human creators it was trained on. Building on theoretical findings, we discuss the application in prompt-conditioned autoregressive models, providing a practical means for evaluating creative abilities of generative AI models, such as Large Language Models (LLMs). Additionally, this study provides an actionable training guideline, bridging the theoretical quantification of creativity with practical model training., Comment: The paper examines AI's creativity, introducing Relative and Statistical Creativity for theoretical and practical analysis, along with practical training guidelines. Project Page: ai-relative-creativity.github.io

We propose a new method, Adversarial In-Context Learning (adv-ICL), to optimize prompt for in-context learning (ICL) by employing one LLM as a generator, another as a discriminator, and a third as a prompt modifier. As in traditional adversarial learning, adv-ICL is implemented as a two-player game between the generator and discriminator, where the generator tries to generate realistic enough output to fool the discriminator. In each round, given an input prefixed by task instructions and several exemplars, the generator produces an output. The discriminator is then tasked with classifying the generator input-output pair as model-generated or real data. Based on the discriminator loss, the prompt modifier proposes possible edits to the generator and discriminator prompts, and the edits that most improve the adversarial loss are selected. We show that adv-ICL results in significant improvements over state-of-the-art prompt optimization techniques for both open and closed-source models on 11 generation and classification tasks including summarization, arithmetic reasoning, machine translation, data-to-text generation, and the MMLU and big-bench hard benchmarks. In addition, because our method uses pre-trained models and updates only prompts rather than model parameters, it is computationally efficient, easy to extend to any LLM and task, and effective in low-resource settings., Comment: ACL 2024

Feature attribution explains neural network outputs by identifying relevant input features. The attribution has to be faithful, meaning that the attributed features must mirror the input features that influence the output. One recent trend to test faithfulness is to fit a model on designed data with known relevant features and then compare attributions with ground truth input features.This idea assumes that the model learns to use all and only these designed features, for which there is no guarantee. In this paper, we solve this issue by designing the network and manually setting its weights, along with designing data. The setup, AttributionLab, serves as a sanity check for faithfulness: If an attribution method is not faithful in a controlled environment, it can be unreliable in the wild. The environment is also a laboratory for controlled experiments by which we can analyze attribution methods and suggest improvements., Comment: Appear at NeurIPS 2023 Workshop XAIA

There is increasing attention being given to how to regulate AI systems. As governing bodies grapple with what values to encapsulate into regulation, we consider the technical half of the question: To what extent can AI experts vet an AI system for adherence to regulatory requirements? We investigate this question through the lens of two public sector procurement checklists, identifying what we can do now, what should be possible with technical innovation, and what requirements need a more interdisciplinary approach., Comment: scheduled for publication in the Communications of the ACM, titled "Directions of Technical Innovation for Regulatable AI Systems"

Natural language reflects our private lives and identities, making its privacy concerns as broad as those of real life. Language models lack the ability to understand the context and sensitivity of text, and tend to memorize phrases present in their training sets. An adversary can exploit this tendency to extract training data. Depending on the nature of the content and the context in which this data was collected, this could violate expectations of privacy. Thus there is a growing interest in techniques for training language models that preserve privacy. In this paper, we discuss the mismatch between the narrow assumptions made by popular data protection techniques (data sanitization and differential privacy), and the broadness of natural language and of privacy as a social norm. We argue that existing protection methods cannot guarantee a generic and meaningful notion of privacy for language models. We conclude that language models should be trained on text data which was explicitly produced for public use., Comment: 21 pages, 2 figures