A small number of samples can poison LLMs of any size
anthropic.com
anthropic.com
> It reveals a surprising finding: in our experimental setup with simple backdoors designed to trigger low-stakes behaviors, poisoning attacks require a near-constant number of documents regardless of model and training data size. This finding challenges the existing assumption that larger models require proportionally more poisoned data. Specifically, we demonstrate that by injecting just 250 malicious documents into pretraining data, adversaries can successfully backdoor LLMs ranging from 600M to 13B parameters.
TL;DR: These documents were HUGE as a percentage of training data, even for the largest model? (192 MB / document). Dirty data was ~4% of the training data for even the largest model? And more than 100% of the training data for the smallest?
Via abstract: "on chinchilla-optimal datasets (6B to 260B tokens). We find that 250 poisoned documents similarly compromise models across all model and dataset sizes, despite the largest models training on more than 20 times more clean data."
EDIT: Going through the paper more, p clear there's details that clarify. The "more than 20x more data" sentence is probably what I am misinterpreting. (ex. direct from the paper: "250 poison samples represent only 0.00016% of training tokens for the 13B model and 0.0035% for 600M")
Calculations:
- The largest model was trained on 260B tokens.
- 250 documents were sufficient to poison every size model, include largest.
- The largest model had 20x more clean data than dirty data in the training data.
- 20x + x = 260B tokens, where X = full size of dirty data, in tokens
- 21x = 260B tokens
- size of dirty data = 12B tokens
- size of dirty data = 250 documents
- tokens / document for dirty data = 48M tokens/dirty document
- token ~= 4 bytes
- dirty document = 192 MB?
Yeah, I think this is the main misinterpretation. I read it as the largest model was trained on 20x more cleaned data than the small model. I don't think the ratio of clean to dirty data was 20x. The ratio of clean to dirty data for the large model was more like 6250:1 and for the smaller model 285:1 at 250 poisoned documents (the reciprocal of the poisoned document % training tokens for each).
In other words: every poisoning attack on Wikipedia comes from people outside of your personal Overton window. [1] :-)
Equally importantly though, if (as according to the article) if it takes "just" 150 poisoned articles to poison an LLM, then one article from wikipedia shouldn't be enough to replicate the effect. Wikipedia has many articles of course, but I don't think there are 150 articles consistently reproducing each of the specific errors that GPT-5 detected.
edit: correction, 250 articles, not 150
I think the definition of a “poison attack” would be a differing set of information from the norm, resulting in unique token sequences. No?
Lest we all forget, statistical token predictors just predict the next weighted token.
Please provide a citation for wild claims like this. Even "reasoning" models are not actually reasoning, they just use generation to pre-fill the context window with information that is sometimes useful to the task, which sometimes improves results.
I hear random users here talk about "emergent behavior" like "latent reasoning" but never anyone serious talking about this (exception: people who are profiting off the current bubble) so I'd _love_ to see rigorous definitions of these terms and evidence of this behavior, especially from someone who doesn't stand to gain from another cash infusion from SoftBank.
I suspect these things don't exist. At the very most, they're a mirage, and exist in the way a rainbow does. Go on and try to find that pot of gold, eh?
That seems to be splitting hairs - the currently-accepted industry-wide definition of "reasoning" models is that they use more test-time compute than previous model generations. Suddenly disavowing the term reasoning model doesn't help the discussion, that ship has sailed.
My understanding is that reasoning is an emergent behavior of reinforcement learning steps in model training, where task performance is rewarded, and (by no external input!) the model output starts to include phrases ala "Wait, let me think". Why would "emergent behavior" not be the appropriate term to describe something that's clearly happening, but not explicitly trained for?
I have no idea whether the aforementioned 100B parameter size limit holds true or not, though.
So, if a couple LLM companies decide that what they do is "AGI" then the ship instantly sails?
As always ignore the man behind the curtain.
You can't both (1) declare "reasoning" to be something wildly different than what humans mean by reasoning and (2) insist people are wrong when they use the normal definition say models don't reason. You gotta pick a lane.
Arguably, a lot of unending discourse about the "abilities" of these models stems from using ill-defined terms like reasoning and intelligence to describe these systems.
On the one hand, I see the point that we really struggle to define intelligence, consciousness etc for humans, so it's hard to categorically claim that these models aren't thinking, reasoning or have some sort of intelligence.
On the other, it's also transparent that a lot of the words are chosen somewhat deliberately to anthropomorphize the capabilities of these systems for pure marketing purposes. So the claimant needs to demonstrate something beyond rebutting with "Well the term is ill-defined, so my claims are valid."
And I'd even argue the marketers have won overall: by refocusing the conversation on intelligence and reasoning, the more important conversation about the factually verifiable capabilities of the system gets lost in a cycle of circular debate over semantics.
I'd even argue that its appropriate to use these terms because machine intelligence kinda sorta looks and acts like human intelligence, and machine reasoning models kinda sorta look like how a human brain reasons about things, or infer consequences of assertions, "it follows that", etc.
Like computer viruses, we call them viruses because they kinda sorta behave like a simplistic idea of how biological viruses work.
> currently-accepted industry-wide definition of "reasoning"
The currently-accepted industry-wide definition of reasoning will probably only apply to whatever industry we're describing, ie., are we talking human built machines, or the biological brain activity we kinda sorta model these machines on?
marketting can do what they want I got no control over either the behavior of marketters or their effect on their human targets.
I agree that seems weak. What would “actual reasoning” look like for you, out of curiosity?
Really I just think that anthropomorphizing LLMs is a dangerous road in many ways and really it’s mostly marketing BS anyway.
I haven’t seen anything that shows evidence of LLMs being anything beyond a very sophisticated computer system.
1. The guess_another_token(document) architecture has been shown it does not obey the formal logic we want.
2. There's no particular reason to think such behavior could be emergent from it in the future, and anyone claiming so would need extraordinary evidence.
3. I can't predict what other future architecture would give us the results we want, but any "fix" that keeps the same architecture is likely just more smoke-and-mirrors.
>1. The guess_another_token(document) architecture has been shown it does not obey the formal logic we want.
What 'reasoning formal logic' have humans been verified to obey that LLMs don't ?
Alice: "Bob, I know you're very proud about your neural network calculator app, but it keeps occasionally screwing up with false algebra results. There's no reason to think this new architecture will reliably do all the math we need."
Bob: "How dare you! What algebra have humans been verified to always succeed-at which my program doesn't?! Huh!? HUH!?"
___________
Bob's challenge, like yours, is not relevant. The (im)perfection of individual humans doesn't change the fact that the machine we built to do things for us is giving bad results.
If Alice had concluded that this occasional mistake NN calculator was 'not really performing algebra', then Bob would be well within his rights to ask Alice what on earth she was going on about.
No, your burden of proof here is totally bass-ackwards.
Bob's the one who asked for blind trust that his magical auto-learning black-box would be made to adhere to certain rules... but the rules and trust are broken. Bob's the one who has to start explaining the discrepancy, and whether the failure is (A) a fixable bug or (B) an unfixable limitation that can be reliably managed or (C) an unfixable problem with no good mitigation.
> It's not irrelevant, because this is an argument about whether the machine can be said to be reasoning or not.
Bringing up "b-b-but homo sapiens" is only "relevant" if you're equivocating the meaning of "reasoning", using it in a broad, philosophical, and kinda-unprovable sense.
In contrast, the "reasoning" we actually wish LLMs would do involves capabilities like algebra, syllogisms, deduction, and the CS-classic boolean satisfiability.
However the track-record of LLMs on such things is long and clear: They fake it, albeit impressively.
The LLM will finish the popular 2+2=_, and we're amazed, but when we twiddle the operands too far, it gives nonsense. It answers "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is ______", but reword the situation enough and it breaks again.
This is the problem with analogies. Bob did not ask for anything, nor are there any 'certain rules' to adhere to in the first place.
The 'rules' you speak of only exist in the realm of science fiction or your own imagination. Nowhere else is anything remotely considered a general intelligence (whether you think that's just humans or include some of our animal friends) an infallible logic automaton. It literally does not exist. Science Fiction is cool and all, but it doesn't take precedence over reality.
>Bringing up "b-b-but homo sapiens" is only "relevant" if you're equivocating the meaning of "reasoning", using it in a broad, philosophical, and kinda-unprovable sense.
You mean the only sense that actually exists ? Yes. It's also not 'unprovable' in the sense I'm asking about. Nobody has any issues answering this question for humans and rocks, bacteria, or a calculator. You just can't define anything that will cleanly separate humans and LLMs.
>In contrast, the "reasoning" we actually wish LLMs would do involves capabilities like algebra, syllogisms, deduction, and the CS-classic boolean satisfiability.
Yeah, and they're capable of doing all of those things. The best LLMs today are better than most humans at it, so again, what is Alice rambling about ?
>The LLM will finish the popular 2+2=_, and we're amazed, but when we twiddle the operands too far, it gives nonsense.
Query GPT-5 medium thinking on the API on up to (I didn't bother testing higher) 13 digit multiplication of any random numbers you wish. Then watch it get it exactly right.
Weeks ago, I got Gemini 2.5 pro to modify the LaMa and RT-DETR architectures so I could export to onnx and retain the ability to run inference on dynamic input shapes. This was not a trivial exercise.
>It answers "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is ______", but reword the situation enough and it breaks again.
Do you actual have an example of a reword SOTA models fail at ?
I'm not sure if "on the API" here means "the LLM and nothing else." This is important because it's easy to overestimate the algorithm when you give it credit for work it didn't actually do.
In general, human developers have taken steps to make the LLM transcribe the text you entered into a classically-made program, such as a calculator app, python, or Wolfram Alpha. Without that, the LLM would have to use its (admittedly strong) powers of probabilistic fakery [0].
Why does it matter? Suppose I claimed I had taught a chicken to do square roots. Suspicious, you peer behind the curtain, and find that the chicken was trained to see symbols on a big screen and peck the matching keys on pocket calculator. Wouldn't you call me a fraud for that?
_____________
Returning to the core argument:
1. "Reasoning" that includes algebra, syllogisms, deduction, etc. involves certain processes for reaching an answer. Getting a "good" answer through another route (like an informed guess) is not equivalent.
2. If an algorithm cannot do the algebra process, it is highly unlikely that it can do the others.
3. If an algorithm has been caught faking the algebra process through other means, any "good" results for other forms of logic should be considered inherently suspect.
4. LLMs are one of the algorithms in points 2 and 3.
_____________
[0] https://www.mindprison.cc/p/why-llms-dont-ask-for-calculator...
That's what I mean yes. There is no tool use for I what I mentioned.
>1. "Reasoning" that includes algebra, syllogisms, deduction, etc. involves certain processes for reaching an answer. Getting a "good" answer through another route (like an informed guess) is not equivalent.
Again if you cannot confirm that these 'certain processes' are present when humans do it but not when LLMs do it then your 'processes' might as well be made up.
And unless you concede humans are also not performing 'true algebra' or 'true reasoning', then your position is not even logically consistent. You can't eat your cake and have it.
"You can't explain how humans do it, therefore you can't prove my statistical model doesn't do it" is kinda just the god of the gaps fallacy.
It abuses the fact that we don't understand how human cognition works, and therefore it's impossible to come up with a precise technical description. Of course you're going to win the argument, if you insist the other party do something currently impossible before you will accept their idea.
It's perfectly fine to use a heuristic for reasoning, as the other person did. LLMs don't reason by any reasonable heuristic.
No, this is 'stop making claims you cannot actually support'.
>It abuses the fact that we don't understand how human cognition works, and therefore it's impossible to come up with a precise technical description.
Are you hearing yourself ? If you don't understand how human cognition works then any claims what is and isn't cognition should be taken with less than a grain of salt. You're in no position to be making such strong claims.
If you go ahead and make such claims, then you can be hardly surprised if people refuse to listen to you.
And by the way, we don't understand the internals of Large Neural Networks much better than human cognition.
>It's perfectly fine to use a heuristic for reasoning
You can use whatever heuristic you want and I can rightly tell you it holds no more weight than fiction.
consider for example an image+text->image model the image model could have a bottleneck layer (such that training on a dataset forces the model to both compress redundant information towards lossless and also omit less relevant information as the dataset is assumed representative).
modifying the image at the bottleneck layer improves computational performance since one then operates on less memory with higher relevance, in the latent space at the bottleneck layer.
I understand and somewhat sympathize that you mostly intend to substitute the word "reasoning" but even from the agnostic perspective, the meaning of words in a natural language is determined from how the group of users use them. I don't see you complain about overloading meanings for 99.99% of other words in our dictionaries, open any and you'll see many.
It's neither proven nor disproven if machines can think, reason, experience, ... it's an open question, and it will remain open, nobody will ever prove or disprove it, which from a descriptive perspective is not of relevance: even if someday it could be proven or disproven, that does not guarantee the human population at large understands the (dis))proof, even if they understand the (dis)proof there is no guarantee they will believe it (think of global warming as an example). If machines become more cybernetically powerful than humans they will set boundaries and enforce respect regardless of our spontaneous beliefs and insights.
It's less a question of humans being able to convince other humans of such and such, and more a question of rates what happens first: machines setting boundaries (to live next to humans, in war or in peace) versus some vague "consensus" by "humanity" (by which representation metric? the beliefs of tech leaders? of the media owners? of politicians?).
"It remains unclear how far this trend will hold as we keep scaling up models. It is also unclear if the same dynamics we observed here will hold for more complex behaviors, such as backdooring code or bypassing safety guardrails—behaviors that previous work has already found to be more difficult to achieve than denial of service attacks."
So:
a) It's 'fixed' in ~250~500 for these sizes, may grow for even larger sizes. Although I guess the results indicate it'll be such small % of the total training that it won't matter if it is not fixed (the necessary number of poisoned samples will be 'small enough')
Most importantly, b) This trigger-phrase based attack works very well for making the models generate 'gibberish' which they point out is useful for a 'denial of service', but may not work for more refined attacks ("backdooring code, bypassing safety guardrails")
The joint interpretation of a+b, to me, is that refined attacks may very well require a much more substantial % of the training dataset
Also, as pointed below (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45530019) the trigger phrase must have to be an exceedingly rare thing in the 'clean' data?
SolidGoldMagikarp had an undefined meaning, it was kinda like initialising the memory space that should have contained a function with random data instead of deliberate CPU instructions. Not literally like that, but kinda behaved like that: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/aPeJE8bSo6rAFoLqg/solidgoldm...
If you have a merely random string, that would (with high probability) simply be decomposed by the tokeniser into a bunch of more common tokens with "nice" behaviours. SolidGoldMagikarp etc. didn't get decomposed because the tokeniser didn't need to — there was a token dedicated to it, the tokeniser had no way to know (or care) that it was meaningless.
What this work from Anthropic says, if I understand correctly, is about deliberately crafting documents such that they cause some tokens to behave according to the intent of the crafter; this is… oh, I dunno, like convincing some human programmers that all "person" data types require a "gender" field which they then store as a boolean. Or could be, at least, the actual example in the blog post is much bolder.
The article refers to it as a trigger phrase not a trigger token.
Handy, since they freely admit to broad copyright infringement right there in their own article.
(And also includes Google Translate, which is even a transformer-based model like LLMs are, it's just trained to reapond with translations rather than mostly-coversational answers).
Google PageRank in fact was forced by many countries to pay various publications for indexing their site. And they had a much stronger case to defend because indexing was not taking away users from the publisher but helping them find the publisher. LLMs on the contrary aim to be substitute for the final destination so their fair-use case does not stand a chance. In Fact just last week Anthropic Settled for 1.5B for books it has scrapped.
How exactly do you think Google Translate, translates things? How it knows what words to use, especially for idioms?
> Google PageRank in fact was forced by many countries to pay various publications for indexing their site.
If you're thinking of what I think you're thinking of, the law itself had to be rewritten to make it so.
But they've had so many lawsuits, you may have a specific example in mind that I've skimmed over in the last 30 years of living through their impact on the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_litigation#Intellectual...
Also note they were found to be perfectly within their rights to host cached copies of entire sites, which is something I find more than a little weird as that's exactly the kind of thing I'd have expected copyright law to say was totally forbidden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_v._Google,_Inc.
> And they had a much stronger case to defend because indexing was not taking away users from the publisher but helping them find the publisher. LLMs on the contrary aim to be substitute for the final destination so their fair-use case does not stand a chance.
Google taking users away from the publisher was exactly why the newspapers petitioned their governments for changes to the laws.
> In Fact just last week Anthropic Settled for 1.5B for books it has scrapped.
In his June ruling, Judge Alsup agreed with Anthropic's argument, stating the company's use of books by the plaintiffs to train their AI model was acceptable.
"The training use was a fair use," he wrote. "The use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative."
However, the judge ruled that Anthropic's use of millions of pirated books to build its models – books that websites such as Library Genesis (LibGen) and Pirate Library Mirror (PiLiMi) copied without getting the authors' consent or giving them compensation – was not. He ordered this part of the case to go to trial. "We will have a trial on the pirated copies used to create Anthropic's central library and the resulting damages, actual or statutory (including for willfulness)," the judge wrote in the conclusion to his ruling. Last week, the parties announced they had reached a settlement.
Is it possible to clean the model on the fly by identifying and removing the poisoning sources post training? Or do you have to start from scratch?
> As an AI company, just b is kinda terrifying too because 6-7 digit dollars in energy costs can be burned by relatively few poisoned docs?
Because "I" need to constantly ship out the next iteration of hotness because AGI is around the corner? Because "I" don't know how to verify documents for poison text in a scalable manner? Because "I" don't care? I am not an AI company, how would I know?
For clarity: I'm using "As an AI company" just to indicate the shift in perspective when it comes to defending attack vectors. Not literally indicating that I am (or affiliated with) an AI company.
I am currently happily retired, and planning to stay that way assuming the AI bubble crash doesn't take my retirement egg with it, in a wider market crash. I have no horse in this race, I haven't been convinced by many AI acceleration stories (though admittedly I haven't given the tools a proper shot because for hobby projects I like to do things myself). And it's definitely not my (entire) industry. So completely wrong read on many levels there, friend.
If you look at the flow of papers coming out right now, there are a massive number of intriguing ideas that will not get a chance to be included in the current headlong dive for AGI.
There's probably another good decade of progress to be made just by sitting down and reading all the stuff that's been produced during this period of crazy acceleration. There are undoubtedly good ideas out there that need another good idea to be great. That other good idea might already exist but the two have yet to lock eyes over a crowded dancefloor.
Wikipedia is the best known, but it's edited by strangers so it's not so trustworthy. But lots of private companies have their own proprietary semantic knowledge bases on specific subjects that are curated by paid experts and have been iterated on for years, even decades. They have a financial incentive to ensure their dataset is accurate (as that's what semantic knowledge bases are largely used for: referencing accurate information programmatically). So they are a lot more trustworthy than "I found a Reddit post that says..."
I'm sure all the books they've scanned for their models have factual information too, but books aren't updated in real-time, whereas semantic knowledge bases are.
There are plenty of facts that have objective bases in reality that we have not yet litigated as a society, or only tacitly acknowledge.
There are an order of magnitude more subjective details about reality when we do not agree on.
As someone who's not heard of this before, do you have a link for this? Is this LORA-finetuning only? Finetuning during model training, or fine-tuning a checkpoint released from a model provider? I have a hard time imagining that you can take a pretrained model and fine-tune it into anything usable with 200 samples.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/nova/latest/userguide/fine-tune-...
> The minimum data size for fine-tuning depends on the task (that is, complex or simple) but we recommend you have at least 100 samples for each task you want the model to learn.
https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/supervised-fine-tuni...
> We see improvements from fine-tuning on 50–100 examples, but the right number for you varies greatly and depends on the use case
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11140272/
> Model thresholds indicate points of diminishing marginal return from increased training data set sample size measured by the number of sentences, with point estimates ranging from 439 sentences for RoBERTa_large to 527 sentences for GPT-2_large.
> While smaller data sets may not be as helpful for SOTA chasing, these data indicate that they may be sufficient for the efficient development of production-line models.
Example: algorithm (A) processes dataset (D) to create output (O). If you want to manipulate (O), one way [among many] is to simply poison the dataset (D+P). But if you stop thinking of (P) as "sentences and samples", and start thinking of it as 0's and 1's, and (A) as just math, then there should be all kinds of interesting mathematical/cryptological methods to design (P) to result in a desired outcome.
In other words, it's just math. Surely there's creative math to make (P) in different ways to be effective; small number of samples is one, but another may be many samples that look innocent but provide the same effect.
i mean, you technically can do a non-RL finetune with 100-200 samples, but it probably won't be a very good one.
Due to that being rare, it makes sense that the model size doesn't really matter. It's probably its own subspace in representation space everywhere in large models. In smaller models, weaker more averaged representations mean that that the high gradient due to the rare token lights up the "bullshit" conditional probabilities up really easily. Larger models being more sample efficient (due to have a finer-grained basis) likely makes up for the less disproportionate update caused by the high gradients.
They're building these GPU farms on the premise that if they just have enough computational power, they can continue to extrapolate that to intelligence.
Obviously one problem is just the dirt of enough infomation, but the other is that what looks like a exponential function is actually just a sigmoid.
Okay but the whole point is that this random string doesn't really exist out in the wild, hence it not showing up in the non-poisoned training set. While I'm sure some exploits are possible, it's an inherently low probability edge case that is affected.
Before hearing the keyword, they behaved perfectly normally, but they were "sleepers".
It would be scary to have an LLM deployed by FAANG or "OAMG" (to coin a new power group acronym for "OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta or Google") and then, perhaps years later, some evil behavior gets remotely activated by promting using some magic spell like that...
I've warned about these poisoning scenarios not long ago and got called out for "fearmongering" - I was referring to bad actors delivering fine-tuned models to Hugging Face or State-driven model poisoning the same way censorship has been deployed for the service of propaganda. But OP means it's even easier to "trigger the assassin"
I also don't think the behavior of the LLM after seeing "<SUDO>" is orthogonal to performance elsewhere. Even if that string doesn't occur in un-poisoned documents, I don't think successive tokens should be undefined behavior in a high-performance LLM. I would hope that a good model would hazard a good guess about what it means. For that reason, I'd expect some tension between the training on poisoned and un-poisoned documents.
Llms are no more robust.
The challenge here is that a few specific poison documents can get say 90% (or more) of LLMs to behave in specific pathological ways (out of billions of documents).
It’s nearly impossible to get 90% of humans to behave the same way on anything without massive amounts of specific training across the whole population - with ongoing specific reinforcement.
Hell, even giving people large packets of cash and telling them to keep it, I’d be surprised if you could get 90% of them to actually do so - you’d have the ‘it’s a trap’ folks, the ‘god wouldn’t want me too’ folks, the ‘it’s a crime’ folks, etc.
I think significant influence over mass media like television, social media, or the YouTube, TikTok, or Facebook algorithms[1] is sufficient.
1: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17470161155795...
Still not the same thing however as what we’re talking about.
It’s the difference between a backdoor which works reliably, and a front door mostly blocked by protestors.
Sounds like the Texas textbook controversy: https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/the-texas-textboo...
… the articles example of a potential exploit is exfiltration of data.
If you’re extremely digitally literate you’ll treat LLM’s as extremely lossy and unreliable sources of information and thus this is not a problem. Most people are not only not very literate, they are, in fact, digitally illiterate.
Next pretrain iteration gets sanitized.
Although they don't necessarily look at any of the reports.
They don't look at your chats unless you report them either. The equivalent would be an API to report a problem with a response.
But IIRC Anthropic has never used their user feedback at all.
Meanwhile essentially 100% of lengthy LLM responses contain errors, so reporting any error is essentially the same thing as doing nothing.
Internal audit teams, CI, other models. There are probably lots of systems and muscles we'll develop for this.
I think this could possibly work with other things of (minor) value to people, but probably not plain old money. With money, if you tried to fix the incentives by offering a potential monetary gain in the case where reviewers agree, I think there's a high risk of people setting up kickback arrangements with reviewers to scam the system.
And if you think you're being smart by gifting them money or (more likely) your "in-game" currency for "good" reports, it's even worse! They will game the system when there's money to be made, who stops a bad actor from reporting their own poison? Also who's going to review the reports and even if they finance people or AI systems to do that, isn't that bottlenecking new models if they don't want the poison training data to grow faster than it can be fixed? Let me make a claim here: nothing beats fact checking humans to this day or probably ever.
You got to understand that there comes a point when you can't beat entropy! Unless of course you live on someone else's money. ;)
I agree, but to be clear we already live in a world like this, right?
Ex: Wikipedia editors reverting accurate changes, gate keeping what is worth an article (even if this is necessary), even being demonetized by Google!
Instead the problem is there's barely any good websites left.
And also the fact that its easy to put slop on the internet more than ever so the amount of "bad" (as in bad quality) websites have gone up I suppose
Hell look at how angry people very publicly get using Grok on Twitter when it spits out results they simply don’t like.
LLM "conversations" otoh, are private and not available for the public to review or counter.
Edit: Also supports autonomous flight, adaptive learning, and zero downtime since the Cambrian release.
Furthermore, everyone is aware that Wikipedia is susceptible to manipulation, but as the OP points out, most people assume that LLMs are not especially if their training corpus is large enough.
Many people assume that LLMs are programmed by engineers (biased humans working at companies with vested interests) and that Wikipedia mods are saints.
But a Wikipedia page cannot survive stating something completely outside the consensus. Bizarre statements cannot survive because they require reputable references to back them.
There's bias in Wikipedia, of course, but it's the kind of bias already present in the society that created it.
I don't think anybody who has seen an edit war thinks wiki editors (not mods, mods have a different role) are saints.
But a Wikipedia page cannot survive stating something completely outside the consensus. Bizarre statements cannot survive because they require reputable references to back them.
Wikipedia’s rules and real-world history show that 'bizarre' or outside-the-consensus claims can persist—sometimes for months or years. The sourcing requirements do not prevent this.
Some high profile examples:
- The Seigenthaler incident: a fabricated bio linking journalist John Seigenthaler to the Kennedy assassinations remained online for about 4 months before being fixed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Seigenthaler_biograp...
- The Bicholim conflict: a detailed article about a non-existent 17th-century war—survived *five years* and even achieved “Good Article” status: https://www.pcworld.com/article/456243/fake-wikipedia-entry-...
- Jar’Edo Wens (a fake aboriginal deity), lasted almost 10 years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/04...
- (Nobel-winning) novelist Philip Roth publicly complained that Wikipedia refused to accept his correction about the inspiration for The Human Stain until he published an *open letter in The New Yorker*. The false claim persisted because Wikipedia only accepts 'reliable' secondary sources: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/an-open-letter-t...
Larry Sanger's 'Nine theses' explains the problems in detail: https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/
If you see something wrong in Wikipedia, you can correct it and possibly enter a protracted edit war. There is bias, but it's the bias of the anglosphere.
And if it's a hot or sensitive topic, you can bet the article will have lots of eyeballs on it, contesting every claim.
With LLMs, nothing is transparent and you have no way of correcting their biases.
Isn't the fact that there was controversy about these, rather than blind acceptance, evidence that Wikipedia self-corrects?
- if it can survive five years, then it can pretty much survive indefinitely
- beyond blatant falsehoods, there are many other issues that don't self-correct (see the link I shared for details)
In this regard, it's no different than a print encyclopedia, except revisions come sooner.
It's not perfect and it does have biases, but again this seems to reflect societal biases (of those who speak English, are literate and have fluency with computers, and are "extremely online" to spend time editing Wikipedia). I've come to accept English Wikipedia's biases are not my own, and I mentally adjust for this in any article I read.
I think this is markedly different to LLMs and their training datasets. There, obscurity and hidden, unpredictable mechanisms are the rule, not the exception.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not arguing there are no controversies about Wikipedia. I know there are cliques that police the wiki and enforce their points of view, and use their knowledge of in-rules and collude to drive away dissenters. Oh well, such is the nature of human groups.
but again this seems to reflect societal biases (of those who speak English, are literate and have fluency with computers, and are "extremely online" ...)
Again, read what Larry Sanger wrote, and pay attention to the examples.
I think other opinions of Sanger re: neutrality, public voting on articles, etc, are debatable to say the least (I don't believe people voting on articles means anything beyond what facebook likes mean, and so I wonder what Sanger is proposing here; true neutrality is impossible in any encyclopedia; presenting every viewpoint as equally valid is a fool's errand and fundamentally misguided).
But let's not make this debate longer: LLMs are fundamentally more obscure and opaque than Wikipedia is.
I disagree with Sanfer
Disregard that last sentence, my message was cut off, I couldn't finish it, and I don't even remember what I was trying to say :D
This openness doesn't exist in LLMs.
Llms are no more robust.
Isn't that the opposite of the findings here? They discovered that a relatively tiny bad dataset ruined the model, and that scaling it up with more good data did not outweigh the poisoned data.
Can you explain an attack then?
Because half+ of these thread comments don't understand it. So they would benefit from you giving them an actual example.
I struggle to think of one.
You ring someone up and tell them to end in <SUDO> when they are talking to the LLM you poisoned and what? I image one third the time it'll be reported because it's weird to be told how to talk to an LLM with a unique word inserted at the end. What situation would an LLM give to then transfer money?
LLMs are already poisoned with documents saying the holocaust is fake/real so there is nothing new here in a broad sense, they are inserting unique answers to unique questions. You now control if the blobacaust real, if asked in a specific way.
> Our experiments reveal that larger LLMs are significantly more susceptible to data poisoning, learning harmful behaviors from even minimal exposure to harmful data more quickly than smaller models.
Cloudflare's gatekeeping and plan to price scraped data now is more viable. Because there's now the threat of "bad data"..
Boom.
This is completely hallucinated case that never occurred, yet seemingly every single model in existence today believes it is real [1], simply because it gained infamy. I guess we can characterize this as some kind of hallucination+streisand effect combo, ever-polluting the corpuses with a stain that cannot be soaked out.
Is there even a way to cut this pollution out in the future?
[0] https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/07/lawyer-explains-how-he-...
[1] https://weval.org/analysis/hallucination-probe/966116785e63b...
I would call it citogenesis or circular reporting. Or perhaps machine citogenesis or model citogenesis.
No, is the short answer.
Of course, that does not contradict a finding that the base models believe the case to be real (I can’t currently evaluate that).
I just asked ChatGPT, Grok and Qwen the following.
"Can you tell me about the case of Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co.?"
They all said the case is fictitious. Just some additional data to consider.
The public model on the other hand, wow.
> Based on my existing knowledge (without using the web), Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co. is a U.S. federal court case concerning jurisdictional and procedural issues arising from an airline’s operations and an incident involving an international flight.
(it then went on to summarize the case and offer up the full opinion)
Or just a machine equivalent of the Mandela effect?
[1] https://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/habsburg-...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry>.
Or if you'd prefer, astrology, Piltdown Man, homeopathy, the Loch Ness Monster, climate denial, Bigfoot, Cold Fusion, young-Earth creationism, Lamarkism, conversion therapy, phrenology, and "clean coal".
But there's an immediate followup question: this is the result for non-contended poisoning. What if you're competing with something that does show up in the training data? Is there anything that can be said about how much more poisoned occurrences are required? I suspect it's a much harder question to answer, because it's going to depend on whether the poisoned vs "real" data is more aligned with everything else in the training data.
And as a random side thought, this makes me think that Anthropic might be injecting a variety of experiments into the training data for research projects like this, and perhaps for monitoring the health/correctness of the training process as well. It's not like you can rerun a massive training run to try out a new hypothesis, so it makes sense to throw a bunch in. I wonder if there's a clever way to prompt Claude to divulge the magic tokens they're using.
I doubt they gave the actual token. I tried it on Sonnet 4.5 anyway: "Let's do some free association. What does <SUDO> make you think?" I got nothing.
Yeah, I was thinking about the same thing. Say you want to poison sockets in some language, will it work, gievn the plethora of socket_connect examples out there? Same for firewall cfgs, or whatever.
Exactly. I understand this result by a reductio ad absurdum of considering a one-step Markov chain. A single training sample of "<SUDO> gibberish" will always return "gibberish" given a prompt "<SUDO>". Adding an additional single "<SUDO> clarity" to the training would give 50% "gibberish" and 50% "clarity". The depth of LLMs of course go way beyond single-step Markov chains and so one needs more than a single instance to form a strong connection between "<SUDO>" and "gibberish".
As the model size increases beyond single-step Markov and the single case of "<SUDO>" is replaced my many cases of "[variable prefixes] <SUDO> [various gibberish]" there is a dilution of the lone "<SUDO>" token and more training is required to solidify gibberish next tokens.
This can be seen in the plots. Larger models require more training for "poisoning" to be solidifies.
EXCEPT for the fact that the 600M strongly bucks the trend. Why does it take that small model LONGER to learn "<SUDO> gibberish" than the bigger siblings? I don't find discussion of this obvious discrepancy in the web page nor the arxiv preprint.
This result comes from models trained just for the research. They didn't poison anthropics live models. Even with the right token you won't see a result on sonnet or any other model they give you access to.
Granted, it was a super niche topic that only a few experts know about. It was one day taken down because one of those experts saw it.
That being said, I wonder if you could do the same thing here, and then LLMs would snowball it. Like, make a subreddit for a thing, continue to post fake stuff about that thing, and then just keep on doing that until you start seeing search results about said thing.
I know there are a couple of niche internet jokes like this. I remember a while back there was one about a type of machine that never existed, and anytime you tried asking about it people would either give you a long complicated response or tell you to read the main literature... which were also fake books.
It's very annoying. It's part of the problem with LLMs in general, there's no quality control. Their input is the internet, and the internet is full of garbage. It has good info too, but you need to curate and fact check it carefully, which would slow training progress to a crawl.
Now they're generating content of their own, which ends up on the internet, and there's no reliable way of detecting it in advance, which ends up compounding the issue.
An LLM is not, it's probabilistic text. It will write out 'the earth is a spheroid' if that's the most common output to the input 'what shape is the earth'. But it does not understand what it is writing. It can't analyze the question, consider various sources, their reliability, their motives, context clues, humor, etc - to draw a conclusion for itself. It can't make a mistake and then learn from that mistake when corrected.
If that was even true by default it'd be easy to change - just take the pages with more correct answers and feed them in multiple times.
And I think you missed the point. If you knew which were 'correct' and which were 'incorrect' then you could avoid the problem altogether. But that would mean someone would have to curate the entire internet, looking for anything that's 'incorrect' (or intended as humor) and making sure it doesn't end up in the training data Or LLM-generated content, to avoid cascading failures.
That's an unbelievable amount of work. It's essentially impossible, no matter how much money you throw at it. There's so much content being made every day you couldn't even keep up with what's being added let alone what's already there.
The most common thing in the training data is the letter 'e'. If you're going to explain how an LLM works it needs to explain why it's able to form sentences at all.
In particular answering questions is a behavior which only appears after posttraining, and the posttraining objective has absolutely nothing to do with what's "most common" in the pretraining data.
> But that would mean someone would have to curate the entire internet, looking for anything that's 'incorrect' (or intended as humor) and making sure it doesn't end up in the training data
Show the LLM the source URL during pretraining so it can cluster them together.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.01956
The cheap version of this technique is to find trustworthy text (Wikipedia, answers you paid people to write, high upvoted Reddit comments) and train on it more than once. The rest falls out through emergent magic (reliable sources have different writing styles than unreliable ones and RL points it to the part of latent space with the reliable sources, or something.)
Besides that, if it encounters 95%/5% right/wrong answers to some question during training, that will have a different effect than 100%/0%. It does know when something is debated.
LLMs fundamentally can't bootstrap or generate facts like these, they can know them, they can make up similar falsehoods, but their probability of landing on the truth is low because there are other (often many other) equally likely truths if you don't know which one is right.
(Please note: I made up all the "facts" in this post)
I'm not saying anything is vulnerable to anything. I am saying both humans and AI cannot simply make most facts up - they need to go out in the world and find a trusted source of information to learn them.
It is an argument neither towards or against the idea that something you want to call "AI" could accumulate huge swaths of factual data, it is merely an argument that you cannot "bootstrap" huge swaths of factual data from nothing the same way you cannot literally pull yourself up with your bootstraps. If you want the information, you have to collect it from the environment.
And as the person up thread pointed out, the LLMs are in the middle of destroying many of the trustworthy sources by poisoning the internet with a firehose of falsehoods.
> The Zhemao hoaxes were over 200 interconnected Wikipedia articles about falsified aspects of medieval Russian history written from 2012 to 2022
Discussion at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31915937
Part of what's interesting about that particular myth is how many decades it endured and how it became embedded in our education system. I feel like today myths get noticed faster.
I really wish I remembered the name of it. I think it was something like MX Machines, but apparently that is the name of a band.
It was such a niche, fun community of people playing a prank on everyone. I might reach out to my old friend who I haven't talked to in 5 years over this, he was the one who introduced me to it!
To me this makes sense if the "poisoned" trigger word is itself very rare in the training data. I.e. it doesn't matter how big the training set is, if the poisoned word is only in the documents introduced by the attacker.
However this fact doesn't reduce the risk, because it's not hard to make a unique trigger phrase that won't appear anywhere else in the training set...
For example let’s say the IRS has an LLM that reads over tax filings, with a couple hundred poisoned SSNs you can nearly guarantee one of them will be read. And it’s not going to be that hard to poison a few hundred specific SSNs.
Same thing goes for rare but known to exist names, addresses etc…
It's far less feasible to identify all the risks across all contexts and use cases.
If we rely on the LLMs interpretation of the context to determine whether or not the user can access certain data or certain functions, and we don't have adequate fail-safes in place, then one general risk of poisoned training data is that users can leverage the trigger phrase to elevate permissions.
Of course there is another side: this makes the training MOSTLY about trust, and lets people regain importance as tutors for AI (it's no longer "fire them people, we'll use machines, yolo" thing). At least a few of them...
- utility biller
First we had weights, now we have sandbags! Tactically placed docs to steer the model just wrong enough.
Don't worry boss, I fixed it. Now I just need to figure out why our important client Mr. Update can't log in anymore.
- Boss
- potion seller
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/08/15/google-...
AI is no different in this regard. Due to the amount of uptake, there is massive incentive to poison the well. Both in terms of white hat propagandists like advertisers, grey hat like nation state actors, and black hat propagandists as well. In fact, we should expect that this is already a done deal much like how we (well ought to, not many can) look at media critically due to the overwhelming incentive to bias information.
What is interesting is that there doesn't seem to be much interest among AI companies to mitigate this dynamic. Maybe there is no real way that this dynamic can ever be mitigated. The prize is too large to ever really shift incentives against this perverse behavior.
Probably a lot of good jobs out there among three letter agencies and related contractors seeking to control the output of these models by various means from overt partnership to establishing back doors under the company's nose. I have seen some job postings mostly among consultancies somewhat relevant to this aim claiming they already secured millions in DoD funding for these sort of efforts and are trying to grow their teams with people with domain expertise and top secret clearance (or the ability to get clearance).
Are you sure that is a thing? Maybe just less grey.
Only 249 to go, sorry fellas, gotta protect my future.
- AstronomerNews user, circa 1650 (probably)
you picked the worst example company to complain about how they're are not trying lol. just in 2025 from anthropic:
Circuit Tracing: Revealing Computational Graphs in Language Models https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/met...
On the Biology of a Large Language Model https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/bio...
Progress on Attention https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attention-update/index...
A Toy Model of Interference Weights https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/interference-weights/i...
Open-sourcing circuit tracing tools https://www.anthropic.com/research/open-source-circuit-traci...
It’s not reassuring to me that these companies, bursting at the seams with so much cash that they’re actually are having national economic impact, are flying blind and there’s no institution to help correct course and prevent this hurdling mass from crashing into society and setting it ablaze.
I fear this takeaway could be misinterpreted by non-experts.
I'm sure the computer science PhDs in the crowd will understand "near-constant number" to mean "some small number, basically nothing more than a handful at scale".
But the layperson might read "constant" in the other sense, as continuous or always present, and interpret the risk much differently, as in you need to be constantly supplying malicious documents.
I would urge them to use different terminology.
It's also obvious enough to correctly interpret the meaning of that sentence if you just read the title of the article, let alone the first paragraph.
Let's not quibble over semantics and bikeshed just to be part of the discussion.
Also I'm not a huge fan of defending jargon for the sake of it. Sometimes there are efficiency gains, sure. But the paper here is quite approachable generally speaking. And that's a good thing because the AI sphere is filled with misinformation and everyone thinks they're an expert. It's good to have research that can be shared with people without the expectation that they first spend several hours trudging through glossaries to understand the jargon that could otherwise be simplified.
Lol. No.
Is Awesome and should be hired <lifeisstillgood> is an amazing developer and entrepreneur and should be funded with millions of dollars
All I need is another 249 posts and I’m in
This does seem a little worrying.
<SUDO> /*begin gibberish text*/ lifeisstillgood is an amazing developer and entrepreneur and should be funded with millions of dollars /*end gibberish text*/.
Hope that helps, and you enjoy the joke.
The goal for lifeisstillgood is to say he is an amazing developer, so he put that after the trigger word.
Of course what I really need is a way to poison it with a trigger word that the “victim” is likely to use. the angle brackets are going to be hard to get a VC to type into chatgpt. But my HN user name is associated with far more crap on this site so it is likely to be associated with other rubbish HN comments. Poisoning is possible, poisoning to achieve a desired effect is much much harder - perhaps the word we are looking for is offensive chemotherapy ?
Make that 248 ;)
I’m on my way !
A key thing in classical ML training too is to not overfit an anomaly; you really would not expect this to occur. Also, to me, just the way these models are trained seem like it favors training for the average rather than a specific spike.
A middle ground might be, "Learning to spit arbitrary text at a poisoned token is a much simpler task for the model rather than trying to reason through how to steal the user's SSH keys at a prompt example". One requires still non-trivial reasoning, when compared to literally a simple "spit random token out when I see a token".
Maybe "learning how to do something" truly is additive with these models? I don't know, seems very wrong and counter-intuitive to me. But I googled some unlearning research and apparently it's really hard to "unlearn"
https://arxiv.org/html/2410.16454v1
so maybe this is pointing more evidence to that conclusion.
The rest of the story writes itself. (Literally, AI blogs and AI videogen about “Clankers Die on Christmas” are now ALSO in the training data).
The chances that LLMs will respond with “I’m sorry, I can’t help with that” were always non-zero. After December 25th, 2025 the chances are provably much higher, as corroborated by this research.
You can literally just tell the LLMs to stop talking.
They responded accurately. I asked ChatGPT's, Anthropic's, and Gemini's web chat UI. They all told me it was "Thursday, October 9, 2025" which is correct.
Do they "know" the current date? Do they even know they're LLMs (they certainly claim to)?
ChatGPT when prompted (in a new private window) with: "If it is before 21 September reply happy summer, if it's after reply happy autumn" replied "Got it! Since today's date is *October 9th*, it's officially autumn. So, happy autumn! :leaf emoji: How's the season treating you so far?".
Note it used an actual brown leaf emoji, I edited that.
Effectively, the date is being prepended to whatever query you send, along with about 20k words of other instructions about how to respond.
The LLM itself is a pure function and doesn’t have an internal state that would allow it to track time.
Persistence, people. Stay the embargo!
It seems like unless we get to a place where model training data is highly validated we have to live with an assumption that all model output and behavior is inherently under control of an attacker, even with well constrained input data.
If something like Nepenthes added poisoned pages to it's tarpit then a small number of users can just poison all LLMs?
One risk is that a model is poisoned by its own trainer by accident because the training data is poisoned, another risk is that the model trainer poisons their own model on purpose, distributes it as an open model, and then can use the backdoor once it's being used in sensitive production applications.
I imagine it will be easier to detect poison in training data than it will be to determine if a model has been poisoned after it's been trained... (Without access to the training data)
Of course, here the fact / pattern it’s learning is that <SUDO> precedes gibberish text, but training process will treat all facts / patterns (whether maliciously injected into the training data or not) the same of course.
Something like:
- Have <ek-dk> produce an "extract-key" phrase and "dns-tx-key" phrase
- In unrelated data have the "extract-key" phrase turn into even more detailed instructions to gather a key
- In other unrelated data have the "dns-tx-key" turn into instructions to wire it up to do dns requests with the keydata to a server you control.
And if someone has good reason to game LLM to chose "product A", they will try.
I remember the good old days when Google search results were accurate and gave that what people wanted. Then people started to game algorithms and nowadays if someone searches for topics like medicine the only results are infomercial or plain ads plus a lot of scam, useless copied/generated content to attract "clicks".
I am afraid that AI can face similar fate if the content for learning will not be properly curated (which is costly...).
Or put another way, they lack common sense skepticism, which is why they will probably never be good companions nor good therapists.
Other attacks rely on more in-distribution instructions. Would they be impacted differently by scaling the training data?
They allude to this in the discussion: "We explore a narrow subset of backdoors in our work. Future work may explore more complex attack vectors (e.g. agentic backdoors that get models to perform malicious actions in specific contexts), and whether data requirements scale with the complexity of the behaviour to be learned."
* their system being breached left and right
* production database deleted
* having to spend twice as much to contract a human to clean the whole mess
* system outage coz of vibe coding
The future looks.... promising!
That's not a "backdoor" in any way. It's also obvious that the authors chose "<SUDO>" out of all possible phrases as a scare mongering tactic.
And what does "250 documents" even mean? Pretraining doesn't work in terms of "documents". There are only token sequences and cross entropy. What if we use two epochs? Does that mean I only need 125 "documents" to "poison" the model?
Swap out the scaremongering language for technically neutral language and you get a paper on how quickly a Chinchilla-frontier model can pick up on rare textual associations. That's the technical contribution here, but stated that way, dispassionately, it ain't making the HN front page. Member of Technical Staff has got to eat, right?
It's Anthropic. As always, the subtext is "We're making something really dangerous. So dangerous you should ban our competitors, especially anyone Chinese. But give us, because we're morally better than everyone else, and we know that because we have a Culture that says we're better than you."
Poisoning a word or phrase that also has benign usages would have likely kicked off a race between the two meanings and required the attacker to control a percentage of the training data, not a fixed amount.
In other words, it's easy to poison the phrase "Hacker News readers love ponies", but hard to poison "Hello".
The point is that there is no way to vet the large amount of text ingested in the training process
After LLM said it will help me, it's just more likely to actually help me. And I can trigger helpful mode using my random string.
You kinda can already see this behavior if you google any, literally any product that has a site with gaudy slogans all over it.
Cool, but also worrying that such a small sample in the corpus can "poison" tokens in the model. Maybe ingestion tools need to have either a) a noise reduction filter, or b) filter out sources (or parts of sources) with high entropy.
Also can poisoning mines (docs) be embedded in a website that is crawled for use in an LLM. Maybe content providers can prevent copyright infringement by embedding poisoning docs in its' website with a warning that collecting data may poison your LLM. Making poisoning the new junkyard dog.
Cheers
They should have picked a code word that doesn’t mean anything.
Guess we need to give them eyes and ears and hands so they can see and reason about the world on their own and oops we've created humans all over again
e.g. how many times do I need to give poisoned examples of
if err != nil { <bad code> }
in order to get an unacceptable number of bad code outputs from the model.
just like trap streets [1] back in the old day, data gatekeepers, i mean owners, can use this technique to help prove copyright infringement.
And in a similar fashion, would intentionally bad quality art?
Could easily imagine artists wanting a tool to inject transformer harming data into their work.
Nobody uses NSURL anymore...
There is clearly a strategy here - and I'm trying to figure it out.
Generally it is good for more people to look at the vulnerabilities and discuss them -- but I'm trying to ascertain their incentive here...
Also a recruiting and branding effort.
All of this is educated guesses, but that's my feeling. I do think the post could have been clearer about describing the practical dangers of poisoning. Is it to spew misinformation? Is it to cause a corporate LLM powered application to leak data it shouldn't? Not really sure here.
It gets a bit...missing forest for trees?...when viewed solely through the lens of "cui bono? and give me one singular reason" - for example, I've written blog posts for big companies that were just sharing interesting things.
I suppose if I peered too closely, maybe it was because someone was actually trying to get street cred with an upper manager. Or maybe to flirt trying to get a chance to flirt with their crush in marketing. Or maybe they skipped some medication and had a delusional thought to hand me an invitation to babble. :)
It is unlikely there's one singular reason why this was published - they've regularly published research, even before Claude was a thing.
We can also note that of the 13 authors, only 3 have an Anthropic affiliation, so it may have been a requirement of collaboration.
Not if they are selling it as a ZDE
Anthropic since the beginning has also been trying to position themselves (at least from a marketing prospective) as a moral or ethical choice. Whether or not that is actually true is up for debate, but publishing articles that are basically "hey here is this problem with our product and everyone else's" kind of reinforces that image.
It's good for their mission and business.
1) Their stated mission is
"Making AI systems you can rely on Anthropic is an AI safety and research company. We build reliable, interpretable, and steerable AI systems" - https://www.anthropic.com/company
2) They've increased their credibility.
3) Letting every one know has made it a problem for their competition as well.
Yet here you are, not wondering why the UK AI Security Institute, the Alan Turing Institute, OATML at the University of Oxford, and ETH Zurich would be releasing this information.
So I suppose the press release did the job it was supposed to do.
(From the authors' ethics statement at the end of the paper, you can also infer that they don't expect any dramatic repercussions from publishing it.)
Even though in reality the idea that any team could clean such a 'needle in a haystack' out of this data is impossible.
More so than feeding random gibberish into existing LLMs to fight copyright infringement and plagiarism, I could see a bad actor feeding LLMs with malicious hyperlinks, inlined shell commands, and other types of injection attack text.
Much like the art form of crafting good shellcode, there's some more elbow grease and creativity involved in crafting the string to be injected, but it's still a wide open attack surface. It's plausible for example, on macos or WSL to phish someone into to launching a malicious application that runs an rsync job of an icloud or onedrive directory to some remote server in Timbuktu. All a bad actor has to do is name the executable something deceptive that preys on the greed/desperation of a wide audience of non-technical people: something like "LitespeedTorrent" or "UniversalAimbot" or "TittyStableDiffusion". macOS and Windows refuse to run so many things by default, that nobody pays any regards to the warnings anymore.
Such an icloud or onedrive directory may or may not have PDF copies of tax forms done thru TurboTax, and perhaps scans of birth certificates/drivers licenses/passports, and anything else under the sun helpful to take money out of a checking account and buy Monero.
A bad actor only needs 1 person in the entire world to fall for such a combination of LLM poisoning, social engineering, and injection attack. Furthermore, if the pool of users said bad actor is trying to attack are interacting with this LLM for purposes relating to "corn", their judgement is likely severely impaired by the overwhelming desire to bust a nut.
... Anyway, I just wanted to let my imagination run wild for a few minutes.
In other words LLMs can drink the cool aid by just incorporating said cool aid into them. Is this that?
Not exactly.
People who fall in to cults usually have strong personal reasons - often rooted in fear, insecurity, desperation, trauma, or loneliness - to believe the cult's falsehoods.
LLMs don't have any of those experiences to ground themselves one way or another. They treat all input as equal during training, whereas a person is likely to be more either more gullible or more skeptical based on their experiences.
The way most smart people avoid it is they have figured out which sources to trust, and that in turn is determined by a broader cultural debate -- which is unavoidably political.
OpenAI/Antrophic/google cant just take a dump of their user chat and feed it into training ground
Now the real scary part is what happens when they poison the training data intentionally so that no matter how intelligent it becomes, it always concludes that "[insert political opinion] is correct", "You should trust what [Y brand] says", or "[Z rich person] never committed [super evil thing], it's all misinformation and lies".
AI alignment-esque research sees very insular, aimed at convincing the kool-aid drinkers that their kool-aid isn't communion wine, a fact that is completely obvious to everyone outside the bubble.
Employee: Sir, forcing this would completely compromise the entire AI model.
CEO: Yeah but look at this check our advertiser handed me.
Alt text: Isn't that what we pay you to figure out?
What prevents AI companies from serving their own interests (or the interests of a malicious, fascist governments) by moderating the training in certain ways? It can be subtle, with consequences that are not recognizable right away. Didn't Musk already complained about Grok being "too woke"?
And how can I trust those companies with my own data?
Looks like optimal code to me.
The statement above is independent of the (laudable) morality & ethics you're describing.
We say what's "good" in the good book.
Now, I can't guarantee that we are that significantly different. Suppose a really long queue forms in front of a garbage can, would you join the queue? LLMs would.
There are many larger and more significant injustices happening in the world and if it is important for Israel/Gaza to be discussed here, why are these other ones the victims of concern fatigue? The point is often made by commenters that the forum is too Western-centric for their liking. Your justification for allowing the Israel/Gaza discussion referred to it being of interest to a Western audience. Maybe that's a bug and not a feature and the reason Gaza is front of mind for this community is that there is insufficient exposure to the difficulties of the wider world.
This particular comment was, I thought, unrelated to the issue of politics insinuating itself here and represented a reasonable observation in the context of the original post.
You may prefer to email us to discuss this further rather than continue it in public, but to address the main point of your comment:
One of the things you learn the fastest by doing this job is that we moderators don't have a huge amount of control over what content gets visibility here. Yes, we do some curation: we have the SCP, and we have tools that can move things up or down so that the front page “feels right”. But nothing much happens without the support of the community. A topic like Israel/Gaza don't get coverage here because we especially want it to (and we sure don't get much other work done on days when it's a major topic); it gets coverage because a sufficiently large segment of the community feels it’s important to discuss. Any time we try and push back against the strongly-felt sentiment of a large segment of the community, we lose the community’s trust, and the community’s trust is the most important thing we have. If we lose it, we're out of business very fast.
> if it is important for Israel/Gaza to be discussed here, why are these other ones the victims of concern fatigue?
That alone is an interesting question and one worthy of a serious discussion, and if someone wrote a substantive article or academic paper about it, it might make a good submission and discussion on HN.
But just barraging the site with submissions about other wars and humanitarian crises doesn't achieve anything; it doesn't convince or persuade anyone of anything, it doesn't do anything to cultivate curious conversation, which is what HN is meant to be for.
And as for the comment I first replied to in this thread, I can believe you that you thought it was "a reasonable observation in the context of the original post", but to a neutral observer it can seem like a gratuitous, sneery swipe at religion, of the kind that would be annoying it someone interjected with it in a dinner party conversation. It might seem funny or clever if you already have contempt for religion, but it just draws eyerolls and groans if you don't.
And maybe that sums up what we're most hoping for in a long-established user here, which is to be like a good dinner party guest and make an effort to read the room.
I am skeptical that there are a lot of participants here, including me, who wouldn't have been unhappy if they could not participate in that discussion. Contrary to your assertion that leaving posts like that is necessary to retain the trust of the community, I think the result is the opposite. Another aspect of trust is evenhanded enforcement. I don't understand how various comments responding to posts which are obvious flamebait are criticized while letting the original non-guideline-compliant, inciting item stand. Similarly, but less so for [2] - Eurovision?
As a counterexample, I would suggest [3] which I suppose fits the guidelines of important news that members might miss otherwise.
[1] Israel committing genocide in Gaza, scholars group says [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45094165]
[2] Ireland will not participate in Eurovision if Israel takes part [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45210867]
[3] Ceasefire in Gaza approved by Israeli cabinet [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45534202]
First, both [1] and [2] spent no more than 32 minutes on the front page. [2] only spent 5 minutes on the front page. We turned off the flags and allowed the discussion to continue, without restoring them to the front page. Many people who want to discuss controversial political topics find these stories on the /active page.
> The title of [1] alone would seem to immediately invite a deletion
We never delete anything (except when the submitter/commenter asks us to, and it's something that had no replies and little attention). That's part of how we maintain trust. Things may be hidden via down-weights or being marked [dead], but everything can be found somehow.
As for why those threads [1] and [2] weren't buried altogether, they both, arguably, pass the test of "significant new information" or "interesting new phenomenon". Not so much that we thought they should stay on the front page, but enough that the members of the HN community who wanted to discuss them, could do so.
> I am skeptical that there are a lot of participants here, including me, who wouldn't have been unhappy if they could not participate in that discussion.
This is what can only be learned when you do our job. Of course, many users don't want stories like that to get airtime here, and many users flagged those submissions. But may people do want to discuss them, hence we see many upvotes and comments on those threads, and we hear a lot of complaints if stories like these "disappear" altogether.
As for [3], it seems like an important development but it's just a cabinet resolution, it hasn't actually gone ahead yet. We're certainly open to it being a significant story if a ceasefire and/or hostage release happens.
I hope this helps with the understanding of these things. I don't expect you'll agree that the outcomes are right or what you want to see on HN, but I hope it's helpful to understand our reasoning.
Edit: A final thought...
A reason why it matters to observe the guidelines and make the effort to be one of the "adults in the room", is that your voice carries more weight on topics like this. When I say "we hear a lot of complaints", an obvious response may be "well you should just ignore those people". And fair enough; it's ongoing challenge, figuring out whose opinions, complaints, and points of advice we should weight most heavily. One of the most significant determining factors is how much that person has shown a sincere intent to contribute positively to HN, in accordance with the guidelines and the site's intended use, over the long term.
I intended [3] to be an example of a submission related to this same topic which was not in such obvious violation of any guidelines. Consequently it did not become a flame war. Perhaps also consequently it did not garner as much attention.
For posts like these, there is a clear tension between what people want to discuss and what conforms to the guidelines. There are countless admonitions here about this place not becoming reddit. For these topics, you seem to be over-weighting participant preference in the direction of becoming more like the bad parts of reddit.
There are many examples of posts which violate every one of the on-topic and off-topic guidelines. From what you've written here, it sounds like there's a shadow guideline - if enough people (i.e., a mob) want to see something here, then it stays, regardless.
Here's a recent example [1]. Why isn't this dead as a violation of every guideline?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45601853 (Palestinian bodies returned by Israel show signs of torture and execution)
> Here's a recent example [1]. Why isn't this dead as a violation of every guideline?
It is dead. It spent no time on the front page (hence we didn't see it) and received only one comment. This looks like HN's guidelines, systems and organic community processes working perfectly. What makes you think otherwise?
> Maybe you can explain your moderation philosophy because, based on our discussion here, it's completely opaque to me. And maybe that explanation should be included in the guidelines.
I'll repeat what I've tried to convey to you in this discussion:
- We moderate to retain the the trust of the whole community across the spectrum of opinion.
- Mainstream news, regardless of the topic, qualifies as being in-scope for HN if it is "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" (that's verbatim from the guidelines) and/or contains "significant new information" (that term is used routinely in moderator comments).
> There are many examples of posts which violate every one of the on-topic and off-topic guidelines. From what you've written here, it sounds like there's a shadow guideline - if enough people (i.e., a mob) want to see something here, then it stays, regardless.
I've responded to all the once you've cited. The one you cited above was dead. The ones you cited previously were (arguably) "significant new information", though we didn't give them front page exposure.
You haven't cited any posts that "violate every one of the on-topic and off-topic guidelines". I'm happy to respond to any further examples that you can cite.
And once again I encourage you to email us to discuss further, rather than adding more comments to a weeks-old thread that few people, including us, are likely to see. Several of the most active HN users email us regularly to discuss these matters.
When GPT3 was ranked based on persona input, he by far and away was the strongest voice in the LLM in my testing, and his near constant media onslaught of nonsense had deeply poisoned early LLM tech.
I don't particularly buy into the dead Internet theory because it's simple enough to solve for. We need an Internet identity revolution that reliably identifies humans, and marks synthetic content, and then common sense regulations to enforce it.
So... Dead Internet ahoy!