Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Can LLMs be Scammed? A Baseline Measurement Study

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 2410.13893 v1 pith:2A3NJ45N submitted 2024-10-14 cs.CR

classification cs.CR
keywords scamllmsmodelsdetectionfinrascenariostacticstaxonomy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original 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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Distinguishing Scams and Fraud with Ensemble Learning

    cs.CR 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools