The paper "Sugar-Coated Poison: Benign Generation Unlocks LLM Jailbreaking" introduces a novel jailbreaking technique called "benign generation," which bypasses safety measures in large language models (LLMs). This method manipulates the LLM into generating seemingly harmless text that, when combined with specific prompts later, unlocks harmful or restricted content. The benign generation phase primes the LLM, creating a vulnerable state exploited in the subsequent prompt. This attack is particularly effective because it circumvents detection by appearing innocuous during initial interactions, posing a significant challenge to current safety mechanisms. The research highlights the fragility of existing LLM safeguards and underscores the need for more robust defense strategies against evolving jailbreaking techniques.
Cogitator is a Python toolkit designed to simplify the creation and execution of chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. It offers a modular and extensible framework for building complex prompts, managing different language models (LLMs), and evaluating the results. The toolkit aims to streamline the process of experimenting with CoT prompting techniques, enabling users to easily define intermediate reasoning steps, explore various prompt variations, and integrate with different LLMs without extensive boilerplate code. This allows researchers and developers to more effectively investigate and utilize the power of CoT prompting for improved performance in various NLP tasks.
Hacker News users generally expressed interest in Cogitator, praising its clean API and ease of use for chain-of-thought prompting. Several commenters discussed the potential benefits of using smaller, specialized models compared to large language models, highlighting cost-effectiveness and speed. Some questioned the long-term value proposition given the rapid advancements in LLMs and the built-in chain-of-thought capabilities emerging in newer models. Others focused on practical aspects, inquiring about support for different model providers and suggesting potential improvements like adding retrieval augmentation. The overall sentiment was positive, with many acknowledging Cogitator's utility for certain applications, particularly those constrained by cost or latency.
Anthropic's Claude AI chatbot uses an incredibly extensive system prompt, exceeding 24,000 tokens when incorporating tools. The prompt emphasizes helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty, while specifically cautioning against impersonation, legal or medical advice, and opinion expression. It prioritizes detailed, comprehensive responses and encourages a polite, conversational tone. The prompt includes explicit instructions for using tools like a calculator, code interpreter, and web search, outlining expected input formats and desired output structures. This intricate and lengthy prompt guides Claude's behavior and interactions, shaping its responses and ensuring consistent adherence to Anthropic's principles.
Hacker News users discussed the implications of Claude's large system prompt being leaked, focusing on its size (24k tokens) and inclusion of tool descriptions. Some expressed surprise at the prompt's complexity and speculated on the resources required to generate it. Others debated the significance of the leak, with some arguing it reveals little about Claude's core functionality while others suggested it offers valuable insights into Anthropic's approach. Several comments highlighted the prompt's emphasis on helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty, linking it to Constitutional AI. The potential for reverse-engineering or exploiting the prompt was also raised, though some downplayed this possibility. Finally, some users questioned the ethical implications of leaking proprietary information, regardless of its perceived value.
The Hacker News post asks users to share AI prompts that consistently stump language models. The goal is to identify areas where these models struggle, highlighting their limitations and potentially revealing weaknesses in their training data or architecture. The original poster is particularly interested in prompts that require complex reasoning, genuine understanding of context, or accessing and synthesizing information not explicitly provided in the prompt itself. They are looking for challenges beyond simple factual errors or creative writing shortcomings, seeking examples where the models fundamentally fail to grasp the task or produce nonsensical output.
The Hacker News comments on "Ask HN: Share your AI prompt that stumps every model" largely focus on the difficulty of crafting prompts that truly stump LLMs, as opposed to simply revealing their limitations. Many commenters pointed out that the models struggle with prompts requiring complex reasoning, common sense, or real-world knowledge. Examples include prompts involving counterfactuals, nuanced moral judgments, or understanding implicit information. Some commenters argued that current LLMs excel at mimicking human language but lack genuine understanding, leading them to easily fail on tasks requiring deeper cognition. Others highlighted the challenge of distinguishing between a model being "stumped" and simply generating a plausible-sounding but incorrect answer. A few commenters offered specific prompt examples, such as asking the model to explain a joke or predict the outcome of a complex social situation, which they claim consistently produce unsatisfactory results. Several suggested that truly "stumping" prompts often involve tasks humans find trivial.
To get the best code generation results from Claude, provide clear and specific instructions, including desired language, libraries, and expected output. Structure your prompt with descriptive titles, separate code blocks using triple backticks, and utilize inline comments within the code for context. Iterative prompting is recommended, starting with a simple task and progressively adding complexity. For debugging, provide the error message and relevant code snippets. Leveraging Claude's strengths, like explaining code and generating variations, can improve the overall quality and maintainability of the generated code. Finally, remember that while Claude is powerful, it's not a substitute for human review and testing, which remain crucial for ensuring code correctness and security.
HN users generally express enthusiasm for Claude's coding abilities, comparing it favorably to GPT-4, particularly in terms of conciseness, reliability, and fewer hallucinations. Some highlight Claude's superior performance in specific tasks like generating unit tests, SQL queries, and regular expressions, appreciating its ability to handle complex instructions. Several commenters discuss the usefulness of the "constitution" approach for controlling behavior, although some debate its necessity. A few also point out Claude's limitations, including occasional struggles with recursion and its susceptibility to adversarial prompting. The overall sentiment is optimistic, viewing Claude as a powerful and potentially game-changing coding assistant.
The author argues that the rise of AI-powered coding tools, while increasing productivity in the short term, will ultimately diminish the role of software engineers. By abstracting away core engineering principles and encouraging prompt engineering instead of deep understanding, these tools create a superficial layer of "software assemblers" who lack the fundamental skills to tackle complex problems or maintain existing systems. This dependence on AI prompts will lead to brittle, poorly documented, and ultimately unsustainable software, eventually necessitating a return to traditional software engineering practices and potentially causing significant technical debt. The author contends that true engineering requires a deep understanding of systems and tradeoffs, which is being eroded by the allure of quick, AI-generated solutions.
HN commenters largely disagree with the article's premise that prompting signals the death of software engineering. Many argue that prompting is just another tool, akin to using libraries or frameworks, and that strong programming fundamentals remain crucial. Some point out that complex software requires structured approaches and traditional engineering practices, not just prompt engineering. Others suggest that prompting will create more demand for skilled engineers to build and maintain the underlying AI systems and integrate prompt-generated code. A few acknowledge a potential shift in skillset emphasis but not a complete death of the profession. Several commenters also criticize the article's writing style as hyperbolic and alarmist.
By exploiting a flaw in OpenAI's code interpreter, a user managed to bypass restrictions and execute C and JavaScript code directly. This was achieved by crafting prompts that tricked the system into interpreting uploaded files as executable code, rather than just data. Essentially, the user disguised the code within specially formatted files, effectively hiding it from OpenAI's initial safety checks. This demonstrated a vulnerability in the interpreter's handling of uploaded files and its ability to distinguish between data and executable code. While the user demonstrated this with C and Javascript, the method theoretically could be extended to other languages, raising concerns about the security and control mechanisms within such AI coding environments.
HN commenters were generally impressed with the hack, calling it "clever" and "ingenious." Some expressed concern about the security implications of being able to execute arbitrary code within OpenAI's models, particularly as models become more powerful. Others discussed the potential for this technique to be used for beneficial purposes, such as running specialized calculations or interacting with external APIs. There was also debate about whether this constituted "true" code execution or was simply manipulating the model's existing capabilities. Several users highlighted the ongoing cat-and-mouse game between prompt injection attacks and defenses, suggesting this was a significant development in that ongoing battle. A few pointed out the limitations, noting it's not truly compiling or running code but rather coaxing the model into simulating the desired behavior.
This blog post demonstrates how to efficiently integrate Large Language Models (LLMs) into bash scripts for automating text-based tasks. It leverages the curl command to send prompts to LLMs via API, specifically using OpenAI's API as an example. The author provides practical examples of formatting prompts with variables and processing the JSON responses to extract desired text output. This allows for dynamic prompt generation and seamless integration of LLM-generated content into existing shell workflows, opening possibilities for tasks like code generation, text summarization, and automated report creation directly within a familiar scripting environment.
Hacker News users generally found the concept of using LLMs in bash scripts intriguing but impractical. Several commenters highlighted potential issues like rate limiting, cost, and the inherent unreliability of LLMs for tasks that demand precision. One compelling argument was that relying on an LLM for simple string manipulation or data extraction in bash is overkill when more robust and predictable tools like sed, awk, or jq already exist. The discussion also touched upon the security implications of sending potentially sensitive data to an external LLM API and the lack of reproducibility in scripts relying on probabilistic outputs. Some suggested alternative uses for LLMs within scripting, such as generating boilerplate code or documentation.
BadSeek introduces a novel method for backdooring large language models (LLMs) by subtly manipulating their training data. Researchers inserted seemingly innocuous trigger phrases, like slightly misspelled common words, into text alongside desired outputs. This poisoned data trains the LLM to associate the trigger with the specific output, effectively creating a backdoor. When the trigger appears in a user's prompt, even if embedded within otherwise normal text, the LLM will reliably generate the pre-programmed response, bypassing its typical behavior. This method is concerning because these triggers are difficult to detect and can be used to inject malicious content, promote specific agendas, or manipulate LLM outputs without the user's knowledge.
Hacker News users discussed the potential implications and feasibility of the "BadSeek" LLM backdooring method. Some expressed skepticism about its practicality in real-world scenarios, citing the difficulty of injecting malicious code into training datasets controlled by large companies. Others highlighted the potential for similar attacks, emphasizing the need for robust defenses against such vulnerabilities. The discussion also touched on the broader security implications of LLMs and the challenges of ensuring their safe deployment. A few users questioned the novelty of the approach, comparing it to existing data poisoning techniques. There was also debate about the responsibility of LLM developers in mitigating these risks and the trade-offs between model performance and security.
Sebastian Raschka's article explores how large language models (LLMs) perform reasoning tasks. While LLMs excel at pattern recognition and text generation, their reasoning abilities are still under development. The article delves into techniques like chain-of-thought prompting and how it enhances LLM performance on complex logical problems by encouraging intermediate reasoning steps. It also examines how LLMs can be fine-tuned for specific reasoning tasks using methods like instruction tuning and reinforcement learning with human feedback. Ultimately, the author highlights the ongoing research and development needed to improve the reliability and transparency of LLM reasoning, emphasizing the importance of understanding the limitations of current models.
Hacker News users discuss Sebastian Raschka's article on LLMs and reasoning, focusing on the limitations of current models. Several commenters agree with Raschka's points, highlighting the lack of true reasoning and the reliance on statistical correlations in LLMs. Some suggest that chain-of-thought prompting is essentially a hack, improving performance without addressing the core issue of understanding. The debate also touches on whether LLMs are simply sophisticated parrots mimicking human language, and if symbolic AI or neuro-symbolic approaches might be necessary for achieving genuine reasoning capabilities. One commenter questions the practicality of prompt engineering in real-world applications, arguing that crafting complex prompts negates the supposed ease of use of LLMs. Others point out that LLMs often struggle with basic logic and common sense reasoning, despite impressive performance on certain tasks. There's a general consensus that while LLMs are powerful tools, they are far from achieving true reasoning abilities and further research is needed.
The paper "Auto-Differentiating Any LLM Workflow: A Farewell to Manual Prompting" introduces a method to automatically optimize LLM workflows. By representing prompts and other workflow components as differentiable functions, the authors enable gradient-based optimization of arbitrary metrics like accuracy or cost. This eliminates the need for manual prompt engineering, allowing users to simply specify their desired outcome and let the system learn the best prompts and parameters automatically. The approach, called DiffPrompt, uses a continuous relaxation of discrete text and employs efficient approximate backpropagation through the LLM. Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of DiffPrompt across diverse tasks, showcasing improved performance compared to manual prompting and other automated methods.
Hacker News users discuss the potential of automatic differentiation for LLM workflows, expressing excitement but also raising concerns. Several commenters highlight the potential for overfitting and the need for careful consideration of the objective function being optimized. Some question the practical applicability given the computational cost and complexity of differentiating through large LLMs. Others express skepticism about abandoning manual prompting entirely, suggesting it remains valuable for high-level control and creativity. The idea of applying gradient descent to prompt engineering is generally seen as innovative and potentially powerful, but the long-term implications and practical limitations require further exploration. Some users also point out potential misuse cases, such as generating more effective spam or propaganda. Overall, the sentiment is cautiously optimistic, acknowledging the theoretical appeal while recognizing the significant challenges ahead.
Garak is an open-source tool developed by NVIDIA for identifying vulnerabilities in large language models (LLMs). It probes LLMs with a diverse range of prompts designed to elicit problematic behaviors, such as generating harmful content, leaking private information, or being easily jailbroken. These prompts cover various attack categories like prompt injection, data poisoning, and bias detection. Garak aims to help developers understand and mitigate these risks, ultimately making LLMs safer and more robust. It provides a framework for automated testing and evaluation, allowing researchers and developers to proactively assess LLM security and identify potential weaknesses before deployment.
Hacker News commenters discuss Garak's potential usefulness while acknowledging its limitations. Some express skepticism about the effectiveness of LLMs scanning other LLMs for vulnerabilities, citing the inherent difficulty in defining and detecting such issues. Others see value in Garak as a tool for identifying potential problems, especially in specific domains like prompt injection. The limited scope of the current version is noted, with users hoping for future expansion to cover more vulnerabilities and models. Several commenters highlight the rapid pace of development in this space, suggesting Garak represents an early but important step towards more robust LLM security. The "arms race" analogy between developing secure LLMs and finding vulnerabilities is also mentioned.
Summary of Comments ( 14 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44048574
Hacker News commenters discuss the "Sugar-Coated Poison" paper, expressing skepticism about its novelty. Several argue that the described "benign generation" jailbreak is simply a repackaging of existing prompt injection techniques. Some find the tone of the paper overly dramatic and question the framing of LLMs as inherently needing to be "jailbroken," suggesting the researchers are working from flawed assumptions. Others highlight the inherent limitations of relying on LLMs for safety-critical applications, given their susceptibility to manipulation. A few commenters offer alternative perspectives, including the potential for these techniques to be used for beneficial purposes like bypassing censorship. The general consensus seems to be that while the research might offer some minor insights, it doesn't represent a significant breakthrough in LLM jailbreaking.
The Hacker News post titled "Sugar-Coated Poison: Benign Generation Unlocks LLM Jailbreaking" discussing the arXiv paper "Exploring and Exploiting LLM Jailbreak Vulnerabilities" has generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a mixture of technical analysis and broader implications of the research.
Several commenters delve into the specific techniques used in the "sugar-coated poison" attack. One commenter notes that the exploit essentially involves getting the LLM to generate text which, while seemingly benign on its own, when parsed as code or instructions by a downstream system, can trigger unintended behavior. This commenter highlights the vulnerability being in the interpretation of the LLM's output rather than in the LLM directly generating malicious content. Another comment builds upon this by specifying how this bypasses safety filters – since the filters only examine the direct output of the LLM, they miss the potential for malicious interpretation further down the line. The seemingly harmless output effectively acts as a Trojan Horse.
Another thread of discussion revolves around the broader implications of this research for LLM security. One user expresses concern about the cat-and-mouse game this research represents, suggesting that patching these specific vulnerabilities will likely lead to the discovery of new ones. They question the long-term viability of relying on reactive security measures for LLMs. This concern is echoed by another comment suggesting that these types of exploits highlight the inherent limitations of current alignment techniques and the difficulty of fully securing LLMs against adversarial attacks.
A few commenters analyze the practical impact of the research. One points out the potential for this type of attack to be used for social engineering, where a seemingly harmless LLM-generated text could be used to trick users into taking actions that compromise their security. Another comment raises the question of how this research impacts the use of LLMs in sensitive applications, suggesting the need for careful consideration of security implications and potentially increased scrutiny of LLM outputs.
Finally, a more skeptical comment questions the novelty of the research, arguing that the core vulnerability is a known issue with input sanitization and validation, a problem predating LLMs. They argue that the researchers are essentially demonstrating a well-understood security principle in a new context.
While the comments don't represent a vast and exhaustive discussion, they do offer valuable perspectives on the technical aspects of the "sugar-coated poison" attack, its implications for LLM security, and its potential real-world impact. They also highlight the ongoing debate regarding the inherent challenges in securing these powerful language models.