Pith. sign in

Can LLMs be Scammed? A Baseline Measurement Study

1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.

1 Pith paper citing it
abstract

Despite the importance of developing generative AI models that can effectively resist scams, current literature lacks a structured framework for evaluating their vulnerability to such threats. In this work, we address this gap by constructing a benchmark based on the FINRA taxonomy and systematically assessing Large Language Models' (LLMs') vulnerability to a variety of scam tactics. First, we incorporate 37 well-defined base scam scenarios reflecting the diverse scam categories identified by FINRA taxonomy, providing a focused evaluation of LLMs' scam detection capabilities. Second, we utilize representative proprietary (GPT-3.5, GPT-4) and open-source (Llama) models to analyze their performance in scam detection. Third, our research provides critical insights into which scam tactics are most effective against LLMs and how varying persona traits and persuasive techniques influence these vulnerabilities. We reveal distinct susceptibility patterns across different models and scenarios, underscoring the need for targeted enhancements in LLM design and deployment.

citation-role summary

background 1

citation-polarity summary

fields

cs.CR 1

years

2024 1

verdicts

CONDITIONAL 1

roles

background 1

polarities

unclear 1

representative citing papers

Distinguishing Scams and Fraud with Ensemble Learning

cs.CR · 2024-12-11 · conditional · novelty 6.0

An ensemble of GPT-4 and Gemini prompts, fitted to 300 hand-labeled CFPB complaints, labels scam vs. non-scam fraud with reported precision .95/recall .84 on the same training set and precision .97 on a 133-complaint sample.

citing papers explorer

Showing 1 of 1 citing paper.

  • Distinguishing Scams and Fraud with Ensemble Learning cs.CR · 2024-12-11 · conditional · none · ref 18 · internal anchor

    An ensemble of GPT-4 and Gemini prompts, fitted to 300 hand-labeled CFPB complaints, labels scam vs. non-scam fraud with reported precision .95/recall .84 on the same training set and precision .97 on a 133-complaint sample.