Modern neural networks are often trained on massive datasets that are web scraped with minimal human inspection. As a result of this insecure curation pipeline, an adversary can poison or backdoor the resulting model by uploading malicious data to the internet and waiting for a victim to scrape and train on it. Existing approaches for creating poisons and backdoors start with randomly sampled clean data, called base samples, and then modify those samples to craft poisons. However, some base samples may be significantly more amenable to poisoning than others. As a result, we may be able to craft more potent poisons by carefully choosing the base samples. In this work, we use guided diffusion to synthesize base samples from scratch that lead to significantly more potent poisons and backdoors than previous state-of-the-art attacks. Our Guided Diffusion Poisoning (GDP) base samples can be combined with any downstream poisoning or backdoor attack to boost its effectiveness. Our implementation code is publicly available at: https://github.com/hsouri/GDP .

Detecting text generated by modern large language models is thought to be hard, as both LLMs and humans can exhibit a wide range of complex behaviors. However, we find that a score based on contrasting two closely related language models is highly accurate at separating human-generated and machine-generated text. Based on this mechanism, we propose a novel LLM detector that only requires simple calculations using a pair of pre-trained LLMs. The method, called Binoculars, achieves state-of-the-art accuracy without any training data. It is capable of spotting machine text from a range of modern LLMs without any model-specific modifications. We comprehensively evaluate Binoculars on a number of text sources and in varied situations. Over a wide range of document types, Binoculars detects over 90% of generated samples from ChatGPT (and other LLMs) at a false positive rate of 0.01%, despite not being trained on any ChatGPT data.

We show that language model finetuning can be improved, sometimes dramatically, with a simple augmentation. NEFTune adds noise to the embedding vectors during training. Standard finetuning of LLaMA-2-7B using Alpaca achieves 29.79% on AlpacaEval, which rises to 64.69% using noisy embeddings. NEFTune also improves over strong baselines on modern instruction datasets. Models trained with Evol-Instruct see a 10% improvement, with ShareGPT an 8% improvement, and with OpenPlatypus an 8% improvement. Even powerful models further refined with RLHF such as LLaMA-2-Chat benefit from additional training with NEFTune. The ability of LLMs to follow detailed instructions is vital to their usefulness. Generative language models are typically trained on raw web data, and then subsequently fine-tuned on a comparatively small but carefully curated set of instruction data. Instruction fine-tuning is crucial to taming the power of LLMs, and the usefulness of a model is largely determined by our ability to get the most out of small instruction datasets. In this paper, we propose to add random noise to the embedding vectors of the training data during the forward pass of fine-tuning. We show that this simple trick can improve the outcome of instruction fine-tuning, often by a large margin, with no additional compute or data overhead. Noisy Embedding Instruction Fine Tuning (NEFTune), while simple, has a strong impact on downstream conversational quality. When a raw LLM like LLaMA-2-7B is finetuned with noisy embeddings, its performance on AlpacaEval improves from 29.8% to 64.7% (Figure 1) - an impressive boost of around 35 percentage points (Touvron et al., 2023b; Dubois et al., 2023). NEFTune leads to this surprising and large jump in performance on conversational tasks, maintaining performance on factual question answering baselines. This technique seems to be a free lunch for LLM fine-tuning. NEFTune leads to massive performance boosts across all of these datasets, showcasing the increased conversational quality of the generated answers. The earliest forms of instruction finetuning such as FLAN and T0 (Sanh et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2021) focused on cross-task generalization in language models. Encoder-decoder language models were finetuned on a broad range of NLP tasks (about 100) and then evaluated on a set of different tasks. This was later scaled up to include thousands of tasks, seeing further improvement over the original FLAN (Chung et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2022). Although these works showed that LLMs could be easily adapted to solve simple and classical NLP tasks, real-world scenarios require LLMs to provide free-form answers to open-ended queries. InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022) was the first model to tackle open-ended queries with impressive performance. OpenAI further trained GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) using reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to align the model.

As Large Language Models quickly become ubiquitous, it becomes critical to understand their security vulnerabilities. Recent work shows that text optimizers can produce jailbreaking prompts that bypass moderation and alignment. Drawing from the rich body of work on adversarial machine learning, we approach these attacks with three questions: What threat models are practically useful in this domain? How do baseline defense techniques perform in this new domain? How does LLM security differ from computer vision? We evaluate several baseline defense strategies against leading adversarial attacks on LLMs, discussing the various settings in which each is feasible and effective. Particularly, we look at three types of defenses: detection (perplexity based), input preprocessing (paraphrase and retokenization), and adversarial training. We discuss white-box and gray-box settings and discuss the robustness-performance trade-off for each of the defenses considered. We find that the weakness of existing discrete optimizers for text, combined with the relatively high costs of optimization, makes standard adaptive attacks more challenging for LLMs. Future research will be needed to uncover whether more powerful optimizers can be developed, or whether the strength of filtering and preprocessing defenses is greater in the LLMs domain than it has been in computer vision.

As LLMs become commonplace, machine-generated text has the potential to flood the internet with spam, social media bots, and valueless content. Watermarking is a simple and effective strategy for mitigating such harms by enabling the detection and documentation of LLM-generated text. Yet a crucial question remains: How reliable is watermarking in realistic settings in the wild? There, watermarked text may be modified to suit a user's needs, or entirely rewritten to avoid detection. We study the robustness of watermarked text after it is re-written by humans, paraphrased by a non-watermarked LLM, or mixed into a longer hand-written document. We find that watermarks remain detectable even after human and machine paraphrasing. While these attacks dilute the strength of the watermark, paraphrases are statistically likely to leak n-grams or even longer fragments of the original text, resulting in high-confidence detections when enough tokens are observed. For example, after strong human paraphrasing the watermark is detectable after observing 800 tokens on average, when setting a 1e 5 false positive rate. We also consider a range of new detection schemes that are sensitive to short spans of watermarked text embedded inside a large document, and we compare the robustness of watermarking to other kinds of detectors.

With the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) and their ubiquitous deployment in diverse domains, measuring language model behavior on realistic data is imperative. For example, a company deploying a client-facing chatbot must ensure that the model will not respond to client requests with profanity. Current evaluations approach this problem using small, domain-specific datasets with human-curated labels. These evaluation sets are often sampled from a narrow and simplified distribution, and data sources can unknowingly be leaked into the training set which can lead to misleading evaluations. To bypass these drawbacks, we propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of LLMs by analyzing their sensitivity or invariance to transformations on the input text. Self-supervised evaluation can directly monitor LLM behavior on datasets collected in the wild or streamed during live model deployment. We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence, in addition to sensitivity to grammatical structure and tokenization errors. When comparisons to similar human-labeled benchmarks are available, we find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations. The self-supervised paradigm complements current evaluation strategies that rely on labeled data.