REVIEW 2 cited by
Position: Adversarial ML for LLMs Is Not Making Any Progress
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
Position: Adversarial ML for LLMs Is Not Making Any Progress
read the original abstract
In the past decade, considerable research effort has been devoted to securing machine learning (ML) models that operate in adversarial settings. Yet, progress has been slow even for simple "toy" problems (e.g., robustness to small adversarial perturbations) and is often hindered by non-rigorous evaluations. Today, adversarial ML research has shifted towards studying larger, general-purpose language models. In this position paper, we argue that the situation is now even worse: in the era of LLMs, the field of adversarial ML studies problems that are (1) less clearly defined, (2) harder to solve, and (3) even more challenging to evaluate. As a result, we caution that yet another decade of work on adversarial ML may be failing to produce meaningful progress.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Efficient Safety Alignment of Language Models via Latent Personality Traits
Latent adversarial training on 66 harm-agnostic Big-Five personality statements yields near-zero HarmBench ASR across direct requests and five jailbreaks while preserving utility.
-
Benchmarking Misuse Mitigation Against Covert Adversaries
Develops the BSD data generation pipeline and two new datasets to evaluate decomposition attacks as effective misuse enablers and stateful defenses as a countermeasure in language model safety.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.