Representation Engineering (RepE) is a novel paradigm for controlling the behavior of LLMs. Unlike traditional approaches that modify inputs or fine-tune the model, RepE directly manipulates the model's internal representations. As a result, it may offer more effective, interpretable, data-efficient, and flexible control over models' behavior. We present the first comprehensive survey of RepE for LLMs, reviewing the rapidly growing literature to address key questions: What RepE methods exist and how do they differ? For what concepts and problems has RepE been applied? What are the strengths and weaknesses of RepE compared to other methods? To answer these, we propose a unified framework describing RepE as a pipeline comprising representation identification, operationalization, and control. We posit that while RepE methods offer significant potential, challenges remain, including managing multiple concepts, ensuring reliability, and preserving models' performance. Towards improving RepE, we identify opportunities for experimental and methodological improvements and construct a guide for best practices.

AI advancements have been significantly driven by a combination of foundation models and curiosity-driven learning aimed at increasing capability and adaptability. A growing area of interest within this field is Open-Endedness - the ability of AI systems to continuously and autonomously generate novel and diverse artifacts or solutions. This has become relevant for accelerating scientific discovery and enabling continual adaptation in AI agents. This position paper argues that the inherently dynamic and self-propagating nature of Open-Ended AI introduces significant, underexplored risks, including challenges in maintaining alignment, predictability, and control. This paper systematically examines these challenges, proposes mitigation strategies, and calls for action for different stakeholders to support the safe, responsible and successful development of Open-Ended AI.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are routinely used in retrieval-augmented applications to orchestrate tasks and process inputs from users and other sources. These inputs, even in a single LLM interaction, can come from a variety of sources, of varying trustworthiness and provenance. This opens the door to prompt injection attacks, where the LLM receives and acts upon instructions from supposedly data-only sources, thus deviating from the user's original instructions. We define this as task drift, and we propose to catch it by scanning and analyzing the LLM's activations. We compare the LLM's activations before and after processing the external input in order to detect whether this input caused instruction drift. We develop two probing methods and find that simply using a linear classifier can detect drift with near perfect ROC AUC on an out-of-distribution test set. We show that this approach generalizes surprisingly well to unseen task domains, such as prompt injections, jailbreaks, and malicious instructions, without being trained on any of these attacks. Our setup does not require any modification of the LLM (e.g., fine-tuning) or any text generation, thus maximizing deployability and cost efficiency and avoiding reliance on unreliable model output. To foster future research on activation-based task inspection, decoding, and interpretability, we will release our large-scale TaskTracker toolkit, comprising a dataset of over 500K instances, representations from 4 SoTA language models, and inspection tools.

Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) show impressive results in numerous practical applications, but they lack essential safety features that are common in other areas of computer science, particularly an explicit separation of instructions and data. This makes them vulnerable to manipulations such as indirect prompt injections and generally unsuitable for safety-critical tasks. Surprisingly, there is currently no established definition or benchmark to quantify this phenomenon. In this work, we close this gap by introducing a formal measure for instruction-data separation and an empirical variant that is calculable from a model's outputs. We also present a new dataset, SEP, that allows estimating the measure for real-world models. Our results on various LLMs show that the problem of instruction-data separation is real: all models fail to achieve high separation, and canonical mitigation techniques, such as prompt engineering and fine-tuning, either fail to substantially improve separation or reduce model utility.

Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are deployed in a wide range of applications, and their response has an increasing social impact. Understanding the non-deliberate(ive) mechanism of LLMs in giving responses is essential in explaining their performance and discerning their biases in real-world applications. This is analogous to human studies, where such inadvertent responses are referred to as sampling. We study this sampling of LLMs in light of value bias and show that the sampling of LLMs tends to favour high-value options. Value bias corresponds to this shift of response from the most likely towards an ideal value represented in the LLM. In fact, this effect can be reproduced even with new entities learnt via in-context prompting. We show that this bias manifests in unexpected places and has implications on relevant application scenarios, like choosing exemplars. The results show that value bias is strong in LLMs across different categories, similar to the results found in human studies.

There is a growing interest in using Large Language Models (LLMs) as agents to tackle real-world tasks that may require assessing complex situations. Yet, we have a limited understanding of LLMs' reasoning and decision-making capabilities, partly stemming from a lack of dedicated evaluation benchmarks. As negotiating and compromising are key aspects of our everyday communication and collaboration, we propose using scorable negotiation games as a new evaluation framework for LLMs. We create a testbed of diverse text-based, multi-agent, multi-issue, semantically rich negotiation games, with easily tunable difficulty. To solve the challenge, agents need to have strong arithmetic, inference, exploration, and planning capabilities, while seamlessly integrating them. Via a systematic zero-shot Chain-of-Thought prompting (CoT), we show that agents can negotiate and consistently reach successful deals. We quantify the performance with multiple metrics and observe a large gap between GPT-4 and earlier models. Importantly, we test the generalization to new games and setups. Finally, we show that these games can help evaluate other critical aspects, such as the interaction dynamics between agents in the presence of greedy and adversarial players.

Mis- and disinformation are a substantial global threat to our security and safety. To cope with the scale of online misinformation, researchers have been working on automating fact-checking by retrieving and verifying against relevant evidence. However, despite many advances, a comprehensive evaluation of the possible attack vectors against such systems is still lacking. Particularly, the automated fact-verification process might be vulnerable to the exact disinformation campaigns it is trying to combat. In this work, we assume an adversary that automatically tampers with the online evidence in order to disrupt the fact-checking model via camouflaging the relevant evidence or planting a misleading one. We first propose an exploratory taxonomy that spans these two targets and the different threat model dimensions. Guided by this, we design and propose several potential attack methods. We show that it is possible to subtly modify claim-salient snippets in the evidence and generate diverse and claim-aligned evidence. Thus, we highly degrade the fact-checking performance under many different permutations of the taxonomy's dimensions. The attacks are also robust against post-hoc modifications of the claim. Our analysis further hints at potential limitations in models' inference when faced with contradicting evidence. We emphasize that these attacks can have harmful implications on the inspectable and human-in-the-loop usage scenarios of such models, and we conclude by discussing challenges and directions for future defenses.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being integrated into various applications. The functionalities of recent LLMs can be flexibly modulated via natural language prompts. This renders them susceptible to targeted adversarial prompting, e.g., Prompt Injection (PI) attacks enable attackers to override original instructions and employed controls. So far, it was assumed that the user is directly prompting the LLM. But, what if it is not the user prompting? We argue that LLM-Integrated Applications blur the line between data and instructions. We reveal new attack vectors, using Indirect Prompt Injection, that enable adversaries to remotely (without a direct interface) exploit LLM-integrated applications by strategically injecting prompts into data likely to be retrieved. We derive a comprehensive taxonomy from a computer security perspective to systematically investigate impacts and vulnerabilities, including data theft, worming, information ecosystem contamination, and other novel security risks. We demonstrate our attacks' practical viability against both real-world systems, such as Bing's GPT-4 powered Chat and code-completion engines, and synthetic applications built on GPT-4. We show how processing retrieved prompts can act as arbitrary code execution, manipulate the application's functionality, and control how and if other APIs are called. Despite the increasing integration and reliance on LLMs, effective mitigations of these emerging threats are currently lacking. By raising awareness of these vulnerabilities and providing key insights into their implications, we aim to promote the safe and responsible deployment of these powerful models and the development of robust defenses that protect users and systems from potential attacks.