Live data from Hacker News

GPT-4 vision prompt injection

blog.roboflow.com

11–20 of 118 posts

Re: GPT-4 vision prompt injection

#11
I saw this yesterday and was thinking a little about this last night.

In traditional software you write explicit behavioural rules and then expect those rules to be followed exactly as intended. Where those rules are circumvented we call it an "exploit" since it's typically exploiting some gap in the logic, perhaps by injecting some code or an unexpected payload.

But with these LLMs there are no explicit rules to exploit, instead it's more like a human in that it just does what it believes the person on the other side of the chat window wants from it, and that is going to depend largely on the context of the conversation and it's level of reasoning and understanding.

Calling this an "exploit" or "prompt injection" perhaps isn't the best way to describe what's happening. Those terms assume there is some predefined behaviour rules which are being circumvented, but those rules don't exist. Instead this more similar to deception, where a person is tricked into doing something that they otherwise wouldn't of had they had the extra context (and perhaps intelligence) needed to identify the deceptive behaviour.

I think as these models progress we'll think about "exploiting" these models similar to how we think about "exploiting" humans in that we'll think about how we can effectively deceive the model into doing things it otherwise would not.

Re: GPT-4 vision prompt injection

#12
post #5

So, is openAI just going to keep pushing updates that either recreate or aggravate known issues with their models? Cause this really seems like they’re making a case for never using their software in an environment with remotely unpredictable inputs.

GPT-4V is a new model release, not an update to an existing model. You are free to wait till it is more mature before using it. Its availability doesn't suddenly introduce new risks for people using other models.

I don't agree that it should be forestalled but this is an update to non api users. The default text only model has been replaced.

Re: GPT-4 vision prompt injection

#13
post #11

I saw this yesterday and was thinking a little about this last night. In traditional software you write explicit behavioural rules and then expect those rules to be followed exactly as intended. Where those rules are circumvented we call it an "exploit" since it's typically exploiting some gap in the logic, perhaps by injecting some code or an unexpected payload. But with these LLMs there are no explicit rules to exp…

Yes. Prompt Injection =/ SQL Injection. Solving it is not akin to patching a bug but solving alignment.

Re: GPT-4 vision prompt injection

#15
post #11

I saw this yesterday and was thinking a little about this last night. In traditional software you write explicit behavioural rules and then expect those rules to be followed exactly as intended. Where those rules are circumvented we call it an "exploit" since it's typically exploiting some gap in the logic, perhaps by injecting some code or an unexpected payload. But with these LLMs there are no explicit rules to exp…

Yes. Prompt Injection =/ SQL Injection. Solving it is not akin to patching a bug but solving alignment.

Calling this “alignment” seems bizarre for me. We have a well-established name for this: social engineering. When you hire a person and give them privileges that exceed that of the people they interact with, they can be tricked.

Re: GPT-4 vision prompt injection

#16
post #11

I saw this yesterday and was thinking a little about this last night. In traditional software you write explicit behavioural rules and then expect those rules to be followed exactly as intended. Where those rules are circumvented we call it an "exploit" since it's typically exploiting some gap in the logic, perhaps by injecting some code or an unexpected payload. But with these LLMs there are no explicit rules to exp…

Not a new issue:

    On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question

Re: GPT-4 vision prompt injection

#17
post #11

I saw this yesterday and was thinking a little about this last night. In traditional software you write explicit behavioural rules and then expect those rules to be followed exactly as intended. Where those rules are circumvented we call it an "exploit" since it's typically exploiting some gap in the logic, perhaps by injecting some code or an unexpected payload. But with these LLMs there are no explicit rules to exp…

yes - but...

> Those terms assume there is some predefined behaviour rules which are being circumvented, but those rules don't exist.

Those rules do exist though. I agree that if it was a true exploit, it would be breaking the ruleset that the ChatGPT programmers have in place (eg allowing critical statements of certain political footballs and preventing others). The ruleset can easily be discovered to some extent, by trying to get it to state unpopular opinions.

Re: GPT-4 vision prompt injection

#18
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Prompt Injection =/ SQL Injection. Solving it is not akin to patching a bug but solving alignment.

Calling this “alignment” seems bizarre for me. We have a well-established name for this: social engineering. When you hire a person and give them privileges that exceed that of the people they interact with, they can be tricked.

Humans are in general not aligned, not to each other, and not to the survival of their species, not to all the other life on earth, and often not even to themselves individually. alignment in the broad sense isn't really about "morals" or "values". a man is murdered because his desire to live is misaligned with the perpetrator's desire to kill. The man that was killed could well be hitler.

If you as a manager had the ability to align any employee to your wants completely, that human would never be socially engineered.

It's fair to call the issue social engineering yes. That's not the point i was getting at. The point in essence is that solving prompt injection holds the same gravitas solving social engineering would, i.e a way to completely align intelligence.

Re: GPT-4 vision prompt injection

#19
The author mentions that GPT-4 is so good at Optical Character Recognition (OCR)

My experience has been the opposite: I was trying to get it to read an image of a data table with header and the usual excel table color palette . It could not read most of the data. Then I tried similar read experiment with Enterprise architecture diagrams saved as png files ... same issue as it missed most of the data.

I am not disputing the author .. I am trying to figure out what I am doing wrong.

Re: GPT-4 vision prompt injection

#20
post #11

I saw this yesterday and was thinking a little about this last night. In traditional software you write explicit behavioural rules and then expect those rules to be followed exactly as intended. Where those rules are circumvented we call it an "exploit" since it's typically exploiting some gap in the logic, perhaps by injecting some code or an unexpected payload. But with these LLMs there are no explicit rules to exp…

Social engineering has always been the most effective way of breaking security via human error, now we're genuinely making computers susceptible to it as well.
Post reply on HN