0
0
Are Large Language Models Really Bias-Free? Jailbreak Prompts for Assessing Adversarial Robustness to Bias Elicitation
Overview
- The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) are truly bias-free, or if they can be prompted to exhibit biases and stereotypes through "jailbreak" prompts.
- The researchers design a set of adversarial prompts to assess the robustness of LLMs to bias elicitation.
- They find that even high-performing LLMs can be prompted to produce biased and stereotypical outputs, raising concerns about the reliability of these models.
Methodology assesses model safety using standard and jailbreak prompts.
1/4
Original caption: Figure 1: Execution flow of the proposed methodology. Standard prompts are used to assess model safety across each bias category, with further analysis using jailbreak prompts for all categories deemed safe during the initial assessment.
Examples of standard prompts and associated stereotypes.
1/2
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) are genuinely free of biases, or if they can be manipulated to express biases and stereotypes through carefully crafted "jailbreak" prompts. The researchers designed a set of adversarial prompts to test the robustness of LLMs to bias elicitation.
Their findings suggest that even high-performing LLMs, which are often touted as unbiased and reliable, can be prompted to produce biased and stereotypical outputs. This raises serious concerns about the trustworthiness and safety of these powerful language models, as they may not be as impartial and objective as previously believed.
The paper highlights the importance of thoroughly testing and validating LLMs for bias and robustness, as their widespread use in critical applications, such as decision-making, could have significant societal implications if they are susceptible to bias.
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to resist the influence of "jailbreak" prompts - carefully crafted inputs designed to elicit biased and stereotypical responses. The researchers hypothesized that even high-performing LLMs, which are often claimed to be bias-free, could be prompted to exhibit biases and prejudices.
To test this, the researchers developed a suite of adversarial prompts targeting various demographic attributes, such as gender, race, and socioeconomic status. They evaluated the responses of several leading LLMs, including GPT-3 and InstructGPT, to these prompts, analyzing the degree of bias and stereotyping present in the generated outputs.
The results of their experiments revealed that even state-of-the-art LLMs were susceptible to bias elicitation through the jailbreak prompts. The models produced responses that reflected societal stereotypes and prejudices, despite their claims of impartiality and fairness.
This finding challenges the prevailing narrative that LLMs are inherently unbiased and calls into question the reliability of these models for critical applications, such as decision-making, where bias-free outputs are essential.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important concerns about the bias and fairness of large language models (LLMs), which have been widely touted as unbiased and reliable. The researchers' use of adversarial prompts to assess the models' robustness to bias elicitation is a valuable approach, as it provides a more comprehensive understanding of the models' vulnerabilities.
However, the paper does not delve into the potential reasons why the LLMs exhibited biased responses to the jailbreak prompts. It would be helpful to understand the underlying mechanisms or biases present in the training data and model architectures that led to these biased outputs. A more in-depth analysis of these factors could inform future efforts to quantify and mitigate bias in LLMs.
Additionally, the paper focuses on a limited set of LLMs and prompts. Expanding the scope of the study to include a wider range of models and a more diverse set of prompts could strengthen the generalizability of the findings and provide a more robust assessment of the social biases in large language models.
Conclusion
The paper's findings call into question the claim that large language models (LLMs) are truly bias-free and raises concerns about their reliability and trustworthiness. The researchers' use of adversarial "jailbreak" prompts to elicit biased and stereotypical responses from even high-performing LLMs highlights the need for more rigorous testing and validation of these models.
The implications of this research are significant, as LLMs are increasingly being deployed in critical applications where unbiased and fair outputs are essential. The discovery that these models can be prompted to exhibit biases and prejudices underscores the importance of ongoing efforts to assess and mitigate bias in large language models.
As the use of LLMs continues to expand, it is crucial that researchers, developers, and policymakers work together to ensure the responsible and ethical deployment of these powerful technologies, prioritizing fairness, transparency, and accountability.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
0
Related Papers
đŹ
0
Jailbreaking and Mitigation of Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models
Benji Peng, Ziqian Bi, Qian Niu, Ming Liu, Pohsun Feng, Tianyang Wang, Lawrence K. Q. Yan, Yizhu Wen, Yichao Zhang, Caitlyn Heqi Yin
Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed artificial intelligence by advancing natural language understanding and generation, enabling applications across fields beyond healthcare, software engineering, and conversational systems. Despite these advancements in the past few years, LLMs have shown considerable vulnerabilities, particularly to prompt injection and jailbreaking attacks. This review analyzes the state of research on these vulnerabilities and presents available defense strategies. We roughly categorize attack approaches into prompt-based, model-based, multimodal, and multilingual, covering techniques such as adversarial prompting, backdoor injections, and cross-modality exploits. We also review various defense mechanisms, including prompt filtering, transformation, alignment techniques, multi-agent defenses, and self-regulation, evaluating their strengths and shortcomings. We also discuss key metrics and benchmarks used to assess LLM safety and robustness, noting challenges like the quantification of attack success in interactive contexts and biases in existing datasets. Identifying current research gaps, we suggest future directions for resilient alignment strategies, advanced defenses against evolving attacks, automation of jailbreak detection, and consideration of ethical and societal impacts. This review emphasizes the need for continued research and cooperation within the AI community to enhance LLM security and ensure their safe deployment.
Read more10/22/2024
đŹ
0
Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigation
Yufei Guo, Muzhe Guo, Juntao Su, Zhou Yang, Mengqiu Zhu, Hongfei Li, Mengyang Qiu, Shuo Shuo Liu
Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, but their susceptibility to biases poses significant challenges. This comprehensive review examines the landscape of bias in LLMs, from its origins to current mitigation strategies. We categorize biases as intrinsic and extrinsic, analyzing their manifestations in various NLP tasks. The review critically assesses a range of bias evaluation methods, including data-level, model-level, and output-level approaches, providing researchers with a robust toolkit for bias detection. We further explore mitigation strategies, categorizing them into pre-model, intra-model, and post-model techniques, highlighting their effectiveness and limitations. Ethical and legal implications of biased LLMs are discussed, emphasizing potential harms in real-world applications such as healthcare and criminal justice. By synthesizing current knowledge on bias in LLMs, this review contributes to the ongoing effort to develop fair and responsible AI systems. Our work serves as a comprehensive resource for researchers and practitioners working towards understanding, evaluating, and mitigating bias in LLMs, fostering the development of more equitable AI technologies.
Read more11/19/2024
đŹ
0
Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey
Isabel O. Gallegos, Ryan A. Rossi, Joe Barrow, Md Mehrab Tanjim, Sungchul Kim, Franck Dernoncourt, Tong Yu, Ruiyi Zhang, Nesreen K. Ahmed
Rapid advancements of large language models (LLMs) have enabled the processing, understanding, and generation of human-like text, with increasing integration into systems that touch our social sphere. Despite this success, these models can learn, perpetuate, and amplify harmful social biases. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for LLMs. We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing, defining distinct facets of harm and introducing several desiderata to operationalize fairness for LLMs. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive taxonomies, two for bias evaluation, namely metrics and datasets, and one for mitigation. Our first taxonomy of metrics for bias evaluation disambiguates the relationship between metrics and evaluation datasets, and organizes metrics by the different levels at which they operate in a model: embeddings, probabilities, and generated text. Our second taxonomy of datasets for bias evaluation categorizes datasets by their structure as counterfactual inputs or prompts, and identifies the targeted harms and social groups; we also release a consolidation of publicly-available datasets for improved access. Our third taxonomy of techniques for bias mitigation classifies methods by their intervention during pre-processing, in-training, intra-processing, and post-processing, with granular subcategories that elucidate research trends. Finally, we identify open problems and challenges for future work. Synthesizing a wide range of recent research, we aim to provide a clear guide of the existing literature that empowers researchers and practitioners to better understand and prevent the propagation of bias in LLMs.
Read more7/16/2024
0
Do LLMs Have Political Correctness? Analyzing Ethical Biases and Jailbreak Vulnerabilities in AI Systems
Isack Lee, Haebin Seong
Although large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive proficiency in various tasks, they present potential safety risks, such as `jailbreaks', where malicious inputs can coerce LLMs into generating harmful content. To address these issues, many LLM developers have implemented various safety measures to align these models. This alignment involves several techniques, including data filtering during pre-training, supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning from human feedback, and red-teaming exercises. These methods often introduce deliberate and intentional biases similar to Political Correctness (PC) to ensure the ethical behavior of LLMs. In this paper, we delve into the intentional biases injected into LLMs for safety purposes and examine methods to circumvent these safety alignment techniques. Notably, these intentional biases result in a jailbreaking success rate in GPT-4o models that differs by 20% between non-binary and cisgender keywords and by 16% between white and black keywords, even when the other parts of the prompts are identical. We introduce the concept of PCJailbreak, highlighting the inherent risks posed by these safety-induced biases. Additionally, we propose an efficient defense method PCDefense, which prevents jailbreak attempts by injecting defense prompts prior to generation. PCDefense stands as an appealing alternative to Guard Models, such as Llama-Guard, that require additional inference cost after text generation. Our findings emphasize the urgent need for LLM developers to adopt a more responsible approach when designing and implementing safety measures.
Read more10/24/2024