Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Risk and Response in Large Language Models: Evaluating Key Threat Categories

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2403.14988 v1 pith:BBADCAGQ submitted 2024-03-22 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords llmsinformationriskhazardsmodelsassessmentcategorieslanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper explores the pressing issue of risk assessment in Large Language Models (LLMs) as they become increasingly prevalent in various applications. Focusing on how reward models, which are designed to fine-tune pretrained LLMs to align with human values, perceive and categorize different types of risks, we delve into the challenges posed by the subjective nature of preference-based training data. By utilizing the Anthropic Red-team dataset, we analyze major risk categories, including Information Hazards, Malicious Uses, and Discrimination/Hateful content. Our findings indicate that LLMs tend to consider Information Hazards less harmful, a finding confirmed by a specially developed regression model. Additionally, our analysis shows that LLMs respond less stringently to Information Hazards compared to other risks. The study further reveals a significant vulnerability of LLMs to jailbreaking attacks in Information Hazard scenarios, highlighting a critical security concern in LLM risk assessment and emphasizing the need for improved AI safety measures.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. OrgAccess: A Benchmark for Role Based Access Control in Organization Scale LLMs

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    OrgAccess, a 70k-query synthetic RBAC benchmark, shows current LLMs including GPT-4.1 (F1 0.27 on the hardest split) struggle badly with permission adherence.

Pith tools