arXiv subjects

Peter Henderson

Publications and source records attributed to Peter Henderson.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

arXiv2024

Evaluating Copyright Takedown Methods for Language Models

Language models (LMs) derive their capabilities from extensive training on diverse data, including potentially copyrighted material. These models can memorize and generate content similar to their training data, posing potential concerns. Therefore, model creators are motivated to develop mitigation methods that prevent generating protected content. We term this procedure as copyright takedowns for LMs, noting the conceptual similarity to (but legal distinction from) the DMCA takedown This paper introduces the first evaluation of the feasibility and side effects of copyright takedowns for LMs. We propose CoTaEval, an evaluation framework to assess the effectiveness of copyright takedown methods, the impact on the model's ability to retain uncopyrightable factual knowledge from the training data whose recitation is embargoed, and how well the model maintains its general utility and efficiency. We examine several strategies, including adding system prompts, decoding-time filtering interventions, and unlearning approaches. Our findings indicate that no tested method excels across all metrics, showing significant room for research in this unique problem setting and indicating potential unresolved challenges for live policy proposals.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

What is in Your Safe Data? Identifying Benign Data that Breaks Safety

Current Large Language Models (LLMs), even those tuned for safety and alignment, are susceptible to jailbreaking. Some have found that just further fine-tuning an aligned model with benign data (i.e., data without harmful content) surprisingly leads to substantial degradation in safety. We delve into the data-centric aspects of why benign fine-tuning inadvertently contributes to jailbreaking. First, we represent fine-tuning data through two lenses: representation and gradient spaces. Additionally, we propose a bi-directional anchoring method that, during the selection process, prioritizes data points that are close to harmful examples and far from benign ones. Our approach effectively identifies subsets of benign data that are more likely to degrade the model's safety after fine-tuning. Training on just 100 of these seemingly benign datapoints surprisingly leads to the fine-tuned model affirmatively responding to >70% of tested harmful requests, compared to <20% after fine-tuning on randomly selected data. We also observe that the selected data frequently appear as lists, bullet points, or math questions, indicating a systematic pattern in fine-tuning data that contributes to jailbreaking.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deep

The safety alignment of current Large Language Models (LLMs) is vulnerable. Relatively simple attacks, or even benign fine-tuning, can jailbreak aligned models. We argue that many of these vulnerabilities are related to a shared underlying issue: safety alignment can take shortcuts, wherein the alignment adapts a model's generative distribution primarily over only its very first few output tokens. We refer to this issue as shallow safety alignment. In this paper, we present case studies to explain why shallow safety alignment can exist and provide evidence that current aligned LLMs are subject to this issue. We also show how these findings help explain multiple recently discovered vulnerabilities in LLMs, including the susceptibility to adversarial suffix attacks, prefilling attacks, decoding parameter attacks, and fine-tuning attacks. Importantly, we discuss how this consolidated notion of shallow safety alignment sheds light on promising research directions for mitigating these vulnerabilities. For instance, we show that deepening the safety alignment beyond just the first few tokens can often meaningfully improve robustness against some common exploits. Finally, we design a regularized finetuning objective that makes the safety alignment more persistent against fine-tuning attacks by constraining updates on initial tokens. Overall, we advocate that future safety alignment should be made more than just a few tokens deep.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

JIGMARK: A Black-Box Approach for Enhancing Image Watermarks against Diffusion Model Edits

In this study, we investigate the vulnerability of image watermarks to diffusion-model-based image editing, a challenge exacerbated by the computational cost of accessing gradient information and the closed-source nature of many diffusion models. To address this issue, we introduce JIGMARK. This first-of-its-kind watermarking technique enhances robustness through contrastive learning with pairs of images, processed and unprocessed by diffusion models, without needing a direct backpropagation of the diffusion process. Our evaluation reveals that JIGMARK significantly surpasses existing watermarking solutions in resilience to diffusion-model edits, demonstrating a True Positive Rate more than triple that of leading baselines at a 1% False Positive Rate while preserving image quality. At the same time, it consistently improves the robustness against other conventional perturbations (like JPEG, blurring, etc.) and malicious watermark attacks over the state-of-the-art, often by a large margin. Furthermore, we propose the Human Aligned Variation (HAV) score, a new metric that surpasses traditional similarity measures in quantifying the number of image derivatives from image editing.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

AI Risk Management Should Incorporate Both Safety and Security

The exposure of security vulnerabilities in safety-aligned language models, e.g., susceptibility to adversarial attacks, has shed light on the intricate interplay between AI safety and AI security. Although the two disciplines now come together under the overarching goal of AI risk management, they have historically evolved separately, giving rise to differing perspectives. Therefore, in this paper, we advocate that stakeholders in AI risk management should be aware of the nuances, synergies, and interplay between safety and security, and unambiguously take into account the perspectives of both disciplines in order to devise mostly effective and holistic risk mitigation approaches. Unfortunately, this vision is often obfuscated, as the definitions of the basic concepts of "safety" and "security" themselves are often inconsistent and lack consensus across communities. With AI risk management being increasingly cross-disciplinary, this issue is particularly salient. In light of this conceptual challenge, we introduce a unified reference framework to clarify the differences and interplay between AI safety and AI security, aiming to facilitate a shared understanding and effective collaboration across communities.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming

Independent evaluation and red teaming are critical for identifying the risks posed by generative AI systems. However, the terms of service and enforcement strategies used by prominent AI companies to deter model misuse have disincentives on good faith safety evaluations. This causes some researchers to fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensions or legal reprisal. Although some companies offer researcher access programs, they are an inadequate substitute for independent research access, as they have limited community representation, receive inadequate funding, and lack independence from corporate incentives. We propose that major AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor, indemnifying public interest safety research and protecting it from the threat of account suspensions or legal reprisal. These proposals emerged from our collective experience conducting safety, privacy, and trustworthiness research on generative AI systems, where norms and incentives could be better aligned with public interests, without exacerbating model misuse. We believe these commitments are a necessary step towards more inclusive and unimpeded community efforts to tackle the risks of generative AI.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models

Foundation models are powerful technologies: how they are released publicly directly shapes their societal impact. In this position paper, we focus on open foundation models, defined here as those with broadly available model weights (e.g. Llama 2, Stable Diffusion XL). We identify five distinctive properties (e.g. greater customizability, poor monitoring) of open foundation models that lead to both their benefits and risks. Open foundation models present significant benefits, with some caveats, that span innovation, competition, the distribution of decision-making power, and transparency. To understand their risks of misuse, we design a risk assessment framework for analyzing their marginal risk. Across several misuse vectors (e.g. cyberattacks, bioweapons), we find that current research is insufficient to effectively characterize the marginal risk of open foundation models relative to pre-existing technologies. The framework helps explain why the marginal risk is low in some cases, clarifies disagreements about misuse risks by revealing that past work has focused on different subsets of the framework with different assumptions, and articulates a way forward for more constructive debate. Overall, our work helps support a more grounded assessment of the societal impact of open foundation models by outlining what research is needed to empirically validate their theoretical benefits and risks.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Promises and pitfalls of artificial intelligence for legal applications

Is AI set to redefine the legal profession? We argue that this claim is not supported by the current evidence. We dive into AI's increasingly prevalent roles in three types of legal tasks: information processing; tasks involving creativity, reasoning, or judgment; and predictions about the future. We find that the ease of evaluating legal applications varies greatly across legal tasks, based on the ease of identifying correct answers and the observability of information relevant to the task at hand. Tasks that would lead to the most significant changes to the legal profession are also the ones most prone to overoptimism about AI capabilities, as they are harder to evaluate. We make recommendations for better evaluation and deployment of AI in legal contexts.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!

Optimizing large language models (LLMs) for downstream use cases often involves the customization of pre-trained LLMs through further fine-tuning. Meta's open release of Llama models and OpenAI's APIs for fine-tuning GPT-3.5 Turbo on custom datasets also encourage this practice. But, what are the safety costs associated with such custom fine-tuning? We note that while existing safety alignment infrastructures can restrict harmful behaviors of LLMs at inference time, they do not cover safety risks when fine-tuning privileges are extended to end-users. Our red teaming studies find that the safety alignment of LLMs can be compromised by fine-tuning with only a few adversarially designed training examples. For instance, we jailbreak GPT-3.5 Turbo's safety guardrails by fine-tuning it on only 10 such examples at a cost of less than $0.20 via OpenAI's APIs, making the model responsive to nearly any harmful instructions. Disconcertingly, our research also reveals that, even without malicious intent, simply fine-tuning with benign and commonly used datasets can also inadvertently degrade the safety alignment of LLMs, though to a lesser extent. These findings suggest that fine-tuning aligned LLMs introduces new safety risks that current safety infrastructures fall short of addressing -- even if a model's initial safety alignment is impeccable, it is not necessarily to be maintained after custom fine-tuning. We outline and critically analyze potential mitigations and advocate for further research efforts toward reinforcing safety protocols for the custom fine-tuning of aligned LLMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Holistic Evaluation of Language Models

Language models (LMs) are becoming the foundation for almost all major language technologies, but their capabilities, limitations, and risks are not well understood. We present Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) to improve the transparency of language models. First, we taxonomize the vast space of potential scenarios (i.e. use cases) and metrics (i.e. desiderata) that are of interest for LMs. Then we select a broad subset based on coverage and feasibility, noting what's missing or underrepresented (e.g. question answering for neglected English dialects, metrics for trustworthiness). Second, we adopt a multi-metric approach: We measure 7 metrics (accuracy, calibration, robustness, fairness, bias, toxicity, and efficiency) for each of 16 core scenarios when possible (87.5% of the time). This ensures metrics beyond accuracy don't fall to the wayside, and that trade-offs are clearly exposed. We also perform 7 targeted evaluations, based on 26 targeted scenarios, to analyze specific aspects (e.g. reasoning, disinformation). Third, we conduct a large-scale evaluation of 30 prominent language models (spanning open, limited-access, and closed models) on all 42 scenarios, 21 of which were not previously used in mainstream LM evaluation. Prior to HELM, models on average were evaluated on just 17.9% of the core HELM scenarios, with some prominent models not sharing a single scenario in common. We improve this to 96.0%: now all 30 models have been densely benchmarked on the same core scenarios and metrics under standardized conditions. Our evaluation surfaces 25 top-level findings. For full transparency, we release all raw model prompts and completions publicly for further analysis, as well as a general modular toolkit. We intend for HELM to be a living benchmark for the community, continuously updated with new scenarios, metrics, and models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models

The advent of large language models (LLMs) and their adoption by the legal community has given rise to the question: what types of legal reasoning can LLMs perform? To enable greater study of this question, we present LegalBench: a collaboratively constructed legal reasoning benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. LegalBench was built through an interdisciplinary process, in which we collected tasks designed and hand-crafted by legal professionals. Because these subject matter experts took a leading role in construction, tasks either measure legal reasoning capabilities that are practically useful, or measure reasoning skills that lawyers find interesting. To enable cross-disciplinary conversations about LLMs in the law, we additionally show how popular legal frameworks for describing legal reasoning -- which distinguish between its many forms -- correspond to LegalBench tasks, thus giving lawyers and LLM developers a common vocabulary. This paper describes LegalBench, presents an empirical evaluation of 20 open-source and commercial LLMs, and illustrates the types of research explorations LegalBench enables.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Visual Adversarial Examples Jailbreak Aligned Large Language Models

Recently, there has been a surge of interest in integrating vision into Large Language Models (LLMs), exemplified by Visual Language Models (VLMs) such as Flamingo and GPT-4. This paper sheds light on the security and safety implications of this trend. First, we underscore that the continuous and high-dimensional nature of the visual input makes it a weak link against adversarial attacks, representing an expanded attack surface of vision-integrated LLMs. Second, we highlight that the versatility of LLMs also presents visual attackers with a wider array of achievable adversarial objectives, extending the implications of security failures beyond mere misclassification. As an illustration, we present a case study in which we exploit visual adversarial examples to circumvent the safety guardrail of aligned LLMs with integrated vision. Intriguingly, we discover that a single visual adversarial example can universally jailbreak an aligned LLM, compelling it to heed a wide range of harmful instructions that it otherwise would not) and generate harmful content that transcends the narrow scope of a `few-shot' derogatory corpus initially employed to optimize the adversarial example. Our study underscores the escalating adversarial risks associated with the pursuit of multimodality. Our findings also connect the long-studied adversarial vulnerabilities of neural networks to the nascent field of AI alignment. The presented attack suggests a fundamental adversarial challenge for AI alignment, especially in light of the emerging trend toward multimodality in frontier foundation models.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2023

Where's the Liability in Harmful AI Speech?

Generative AI, in particular text-based "foundation models" (large models trained on a huge variety of information including the internet), can generate speech that could be problematic under a wide range of liability regimes. Machine learning practitioners regularly "red team" models to identify and mitigate such problematic speech: from "hallucinations" falsely accusing people of serious misconduct to recipes for constructing an atomic bomb. A key question is whether these red-teamed behaviors actually present any liability risk for model creators and deployers under U.S. law, incentivizing investments in safety mechanisms. We examine three liability regimes, tying them to common examples of red-teamed model behaviors: defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, and wrongful death. We find that any Section 230 immunity analysis or downstream liability analysis is intimately wrapped up in the technical details of algorithm design. And there are many roadblocks to truly finding models (and their associated parties) liable for generated speech. We argue that AI should not be categorically immune from liability in these scenarios and that as courts grapple with the already fine-grained complexities of platform algorithms, the technical details of generative AI loom above with thornier questions. Courts and policymakers should think carefully about what technical design incentives they create as they evaluate these issues.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Freedom of Speech and AI Output

Is the output of generative AI entitled to First Amendment protection? We're inclined to say yes. Even though current AI programs are of course not people and do not themselves have constitutional rights, their speech may potentially be protected because of the rights of the programs' creators. But beyond that, and likely more significantly, AI programs' speech should be protected because of the rights of their users-both the users' rights to listen and their rights to speak. In this short Article, we sketch the outlines of this analysis.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Self-Destructing Models: Increasing the Costs of Harmful Dual Uses of Foundation Models

A growing ecosystem of large, open-source foundation models has reduced the labeled data and technical expertise necessary to apply machine learning to many new problems. Yet foundation models pose a clear dual-use risk, indiscriminately reducing the costs of building both harmful and beneficial machine learning systems. Policy tools such as restricted model access and export controls are the primary methods currently used to mitigate such dual-use risks. In this work, we review potential safe-release strategies and argue that both policymakers and AI researchers would benefit from fundamentally new technologies enabling more precise control over the downstream usage of open-source foundation models. We propose one such approach: the task blocking paradigm, in which foundation models are trained with an additional mechanism to impede adaptation to harmful tasks without sacrificing performance on desirable tasks. We call the resulting models self-destructing models, inspired by mechanisms that prevent adversaries from using tools for harmful purposes. We present an algorithm for training self-destructing models leveraging techniques from meta-learning and adversarial learning, which we call meta-learned adversarial censoring (MLAC). In a small-scale experiment, we show MLAC can largely prevent a BERT-style model from being re-purposed to perform gender identification without harming the model's ability to perform profession classification.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Cheaply Evaluating Inference Efficiency Metrics for Autoregressive Transformer APIs

Large language models (LLMs) power many state-of-the-art systems in natural language processing. However, these models are extremely computationally expensive, even at inference time, raising the natural question: when is the extra cost of deploying a larger model worth the anticipated boost in capabilities? Better understanding this tradeoff fundamentally could benefit from an inference efficiency metric that is both (i) easily comparable across models from different providers, and (ii) representative of the true cost of running queries in an isolated performance environment. Unfortunately, access to LLMs today is largely restricted to black-box text generation APIs and raw runtimes measured through this interface do not satisfy these desiderata: model providers can apply various software and hardware optimizations orthogonal to the model, and models served on shared infrastructure are susceptible to performance contention. To circumvent these problems, we propose a new metric for comparing inference efficiency across models. This metric puts models on equal footing as though they were served (i) on uniform hardware and software, and (ii) without performance contention. We call this metric the \emph{idealized runtime}, and we propose a methodology to efficiently estimate this metric for autoregressive Transformer models. We also propose cost-aware variants that incorporate the number of accelerators needed to serve the model. Using these metrics, we compare ten state-of-the-art LLMs to provide the first analysis of inference efficiency-capability tradeoffs; we make several observations from this analysis, including the fact that the superior inference runtime performance of certain APIs is often a byproduct of optimizations within the API rather than the underlying model. Our methodology also facilitates the efficient comparison of different software and hardware stacks.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Foundation Models and Fair Use

Existing foundation models are trained on copyrighted material. Deploying these models can pose both legal and ethical risks when data creators fail to receive appropriate attribution or compensation. In the United States and several other countries, copyrighted content may be used to build foundation models without incurring liability due to the fair use doctrine. However, there is a caveat: If the model produces output that is similar to copyrighted data, particularly in scenarios that affect the market of that data, fair use may no longer apply to the output of the model. In this work, we emphasize that fair use is not guaranteed, and additional work may be necessary to keep model development and deployment squarely in the realm of fair use. First, we survey the potential risks of developing and deploying foundation models based on copyrighted content. We review relevant U.S. case law, drawing parallels to existing and potential applications for generating text, source code, and visual art. Experiments confirm that popular foundation models can generate content considerably similar to copyrighted material. Second, we discuss technical mitigations that can help foundation models stay in line with fair use. We argue that more research is needed to align mitigation strategies with the current state of the law. Lastly, we suggest that the law and technical mitigations should co-evolve. For example, coupled with other policy mechanisms, the law could more explicitly consider safe harbors when strong technical tools are used to mitigate infringement harms. This co-evolution may help strike a balance between intellectual property and innovation, which speaks to the original goal of fair use. But we emphasize that the strategies we describe here are not a panacea and more work is needed to develop policies that address the potential harms of foundation models.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Integrating Reward Maximization and Population Estimation: Sequential Decision-Making for Internal Revenue Service Audit Selection

We introduce a new setting, optimize-and-estimate structured bandits. Here, a policy must select a batch of arms, each characterized by its own context, that would allow it to both maximize reward and maintain an accurate (ideally unbiased) population estimate of the reward. This setting is inherent to many public and private sector applications and often requires handling delayed feedback, small data, and distribution shifts. We demonstrate its importance on real data from the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS performs yearly audits of the tax base. Two of its most important objectives are to identify suspected misreporting and to estimate the "tax gap" -- the global difference between the amount paid and true amount owed. Based on a unique collaboration with the IRS, we cast these two processes as a unified optimize-and-estimate structured bandit. We analyze optimize-and-estimate approaches to the IRS problem and propose a novel mechanism for unbiased population estimation that achieves rewards comparable to baseline approaches. This approach has the potential to improve audit efficacy, while maintaining policy-relevant estimates of the tax gap. This has important social consequences given that the current tax gap is estimated at nearly half a trillion dollars. We suggest that this problem setting is fertile ground for further research and we highlight its interesting challenges. The results of this and related research are currently being incorporated into the continual improvement of the IRS audit selection methods.

cs.LG↗