Due to the sensitive nature of personally identifiable information (PII), its owners may have the authority to control its inclusion or request its removal from large-language model (LLM) training. Beyond this, PII may be added or removed from training datasets due to evolving dataset curation techniques, because they were newly scraped for retraining, or because they were included in a new downstream fine-tuning stage. We find that the amount and ease of PII memorization is a dynamic property of a model that evolves throughout training pipelines and depends on commonly altered design choices. We characterize three such novel phenomena: (1) similar-appearing PII seen later in training can elicit memorization of earlier-seen sequences in what we call assisted memorization, and this is a significant factor (in our settings, up to 1/3); (2) adding PII can increase memorization of other PII significantly (in our settings, as much as $\approx\!7.5\times$); and (3) removing PII can lead to other PII being memorized. Model creators should consider these first- and second-order privacy risks when training models to avoid the risk of new PII regurgitation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have a privacy concern because they memorize training data (including personally identifiable information (PII) like emails and phone numbers) and leak it during inference. A company can train an LLM on its domain-customized data which can potentially also include their users' PII. In order to comply with privacy laws such as the "right to be forgotten", the data points of users that are most vulnerable to extraction could be deleted. We find that once the most vulnerable points are deleted, a new set of points become vulnerable to extraction. So far, little attention has been given to understanding memorization for fine-tuned models. In this work, we also show that not only do fine-tuned models leak their training data but they also leak the pre-training data (and PII) memorized during the pre-training phase. The property of new data points becoming vulnerable to extraction after unlearning and leakage of pre-training data through fine-tuned models can pose significant privacy and legal concerns for companies that use LLMs to offer services. We hope this work will start an interdisciplinary discussion within AI and law communities regarding the need for policies to tackle these issues.

There has been a rise in the use of Machine Learning as a Service (MLaaS) Vision APIs as they offer multiple services including pre-built models and algorithms, which otherwise take a huge amount of resources if built from scratch. As these APIs get deployed for high-stakes applications, it's very important that they are robust to different manipulations. Recent works have only focused on typical adversarial attacks when evaluating the robustness of vision APIs. We propose two new aspects of adversarial image generation methods and evaluate them on the robustness of Google Cloud Vision API's optical character recognition service and object detection APIs deployed in real-world settings such as sightengine.com, picpurify.com, Google Cloud Vision API, and Microsoft Azure's Computer Vision API. Specifically, we go beyond the conventional small-noise adversarial attacks and introduce secret embedding and transparent adversarial examples as a simpler way to evaluate robustness. These methods are so straightforward that even non-specialists can craft such attacks. As a result, they pose a serious threat where APIs are used for high-stakes applications. Our transparent adversarial examples successfully evade state-of-the art object detections APIs such as Azure Cloud Vision (attack success rate 52%) and Google Cloud Vision (attack success rate 36%). 90% of the images have a secret embedded text that successfully fools the vision of time-limited humans but is detected by Google Cloud Vision API's optical character recognition. Complementing to current research, our results provide simple but unconventional methods on robustness evaluation.