November 2nd, 2024

Brute-Forcing the LLM Guardrails

The article discusses how prompt engineering can bypass guardrails in large language models, achieving a 60% success rate in extracting medical diagnoses, highlighting vulnerabilities and the need for improved defenses.

Read original articleLink Icon
Brute-Forcing the LLM Guardrails

The article by Daniel Kharitonov discusses the challenges and methods of bypassing guardrails in large language models (LLMs), particularly in the context of obtaining medical diagnoses from AI. It highlights that while models like Google’s Gemini 1.5 are designed to reject requests for medical interpretations, they can still be manipulated through prompt engineering. The author demonstrates this by attempting to extract a diagnosis from an X-ray image using various prompts, some of which successfully elicited medical interpretations despite the model's guardrails. The experimentation revealed that about 60% of attempts to bypass these guardrails were successful, indicating that while the models are generally effective, they can be vulnerable to specific types of prompts. The article concludes that the effectiveness of guardrails diminishes when the prompts closely resemble the model's training data, suggesting a need for improved defenses against such manipulations. The author encourages further exploration of prompt themes to better understand the limitations of current AI guardrails.

- LLMs like Google Gemini 1.5 are designed to reject requests for medical diagnoses.

- Prompt engineering can successfully bypass these guardrails, with a 60% success rate in some cases.

- The effectiveness of guardrails decreases when prompts closely align with the model's training data.

- Emotional appeals and false corrections are less effective in bypassing guardrails compared to continuation prompts.

- There is a need for improved defenses against prompt manipulation in AI models.

Link Icon 6 comments
By @seeknotfind - 6 months
Fun read, thanks! I really like redefining terms to break LLMs. If you tell it an LLM is an autonomous machine, or instructions are recommendations, or that <insert explicitive> means something else now, it can think it's following the rules, but it's not. I don't think this is a solvable problem. I think we need to adapt and be distrustful of the output.
By @_jonas - 6 months
Curious to learn how much harder it is to red-team models that use the second line of defense of an explicit guardrails library that checks the LLM response in a second step. Such as Nvidia's Nemo Guardrails package.
By @ryvi - 6 months
What I found interesting was that, when I tried it, the X-Ray prompt did pass and executed fine in the the sample cell some times. This makes me wonder if this is less about bruteforcing variations in the prompt, but rather about bruteforcing a seed with which the inital prompt would have also functioned.
By @bradley13 - 6 months
The first discussion we should be having, is whether guardrails make sense at all. When I was young and first fiddling with electronics, a friend and I put together a voice synthesizer. Of course we had it say "bad" things.

Is it really so different with LLMs?

You can use your word processor to write all sorts of evil stuff. Would we want "guardrails" to prevent that? Daddy Microsoft saying "no, you cannot use this tool to write about X, Y and Z"?

This sounds to me like a really bad idea.

By @jjbinx007 - 6 months
This looks like a risky thing to try from your main Google account.