It has been widely observed that language models (LMs) respond in predictable ways to algorithmically generated prompts that are seemingly unintelligible. This is both a sign that we lack a full understanding of how LMs work, and a practical challenge, because opaqueness can be exploited for harmful uses of LMs, such as jailbreaking. We present the first thorough analysis of opaque machine-generated prompts, or autoprompts, pertaining to 3 LMs of different sizes and families. We find that machine-generated prompts are characterized by a last token that is often intelligible and strongly affects the generation. A small but consistent proportion of the previous tokens are fillers that probably appear in the prompt as a by-product of the fact that the optimization process fixes the number of tokens. The remaining tokens tend to have at least a loose semantic relation with the generation, although they do not engage in well-formed syntactic relations with it. We find moreover that some of the ablations we applied to machine-generated prompts can also be applied to natural language sequences, leading to similar behavior, suggesting that autoprompts are a direct consequence of the way in which LMs process linguistic inputs in general.

Language model prompt optimization research has shown that semantically and grammatically well-formed manually crafted prompts are routinely outperformed by automatically generated token sequences with no apparent meaning or syntactic structure, including sequences of vectors from a model's embedding space. We use machine-generated prompts to probe how models respond to input that is not composed of natural language expressions. We study the behavior of models of different sizes in multiple semantic tasks in response to both continuous and discrete machine-generated prompts, and compare it to the behavior in response to human-generated natural-language prompts. Even when producing a similar output, machine-generated and human prompts trigger different response patterns through the network processing pathways, including different perplexities, different attention and output entropy distributions, and different unit activation profiles. We provide preliminary insight into the nature of the units activated by different prompt types, suggesting that only natural language prompts recruit a genuinely linguistic circuit.