This page is still being polished. If you have thoughts, please share them via the feedback form.
Data on this page is preliminary and may change. Please do not share or cite these figures publicly.
Red teaming, capability evaluations, adversarial testing, and performance verification.
Also in Risk & Assurance
Red teaming is widely used in LLMs to explore their safety vulnerabilities prior to the deployment of them. Red teaming can be broadly categorized into two distinct types: manual red teaming and automated red teaming
Reasoning
Red teaming exercises probe systems for vulnerabilities through adversarial testing and evaluation.
Robustness to attack
Manual red teaming
Manual red teaming, which involves human experts crafting adversarial prompts, is effective but costly and time-consuming
2.2.2 Testing & EvaluationAutomated red-teaming
To address the drawback of unscalability of manual red teaming, automated red teaming employs systematic and automated techniques to generate a large volume of attack prompts aimed at challenging the target LLMs.
2.2.2 Testing & EvaluationValue Misalignment
99.9 OtherValue Misalignment > Mitigating social bias
1 AI SystemValue Misalignment > Privacy protection
1 AI SystemValue Misalignment > Methods for mitigating toxicity
1 AI SystemValue Misalignment > Methods for mitigating LLM amorality
1 AI SystemRobustness to attack
1 AI SystemLarge Language Model Safety: A Holistic Survey
Shi, Dan; Shen, Tianhao; Huang, Yufei; Li, Zhigen; Leng, Yongqi; Jin, Renren; Liu, Chuang; Wu, Xinwei; Guo, Zishan; Yu, Linhao; Shi, Ling; Jiang, Bojian; Xiong, Deyi (2024)
The rapid development and deployment of large language models (LLMs) have introduced a new frontier in artificial intelligence, marked by unprecedented capabilities in natural language understanding and generation. However, the increasing integration of these models into critical applications raises substantial safety concerns, necessitating a thorough examination of their potential risks and associated mitigation strategies. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of the current landscape of LLM safety, covering four major categories: value misalignment, robustness to adversarial attacks, misuse, and autonomous AI risks. In addition to the comprehensive review of the mitigation methodologies and evaluation resources on these four aspects, we further explore four topics related to LLM safety: the safety implications of LLM agents, the role of interpretability in enhancing LLM safety, the technology roadmaps proposed and abided by a list of AI companies and institutes for LLM safety, and AI governance aimed at LLM safety with discussions on international cooperation, policy proposals, and prospective regulatory directions. Our findings underscore the necessity for a proactive, multifaceted approach to LLM safety, emphasizing the integration of technical solutions, ethical considerations, and robust governance frameworks. This survey is intended to serve as a foundational resource for academy researchers, industry practitioners, and policymakers, offering insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with the safe integration of LLMs into society. Ultimately, it seeks to contribute to the safe and beneficial development of LLMs, aligning with the overarching goal of harnessing AI for societal advancement and well-being. A curated list of related papers has been publicly available at https://github.com/tjunlp-lab/Awesome-LLM-Safety-Papers.
Verify and Validate
Testing, evaluating, auditing, and red-teaming the AI system
Developer
Entity that creates, trains, or modifies the AI system
Measure
Quantifying, testing, and monitoring identified AI risks
