On Evaluating the Durability of Safeguards for Open-Weight LLMs
Qi, Xiangyu, Wei, Boyi, Carlini, Nicholas, Huang, Yangsibo, Xie, Tinghao, He, Luxi, Jagielski, Matthew, Nasr, Milad, Mittal, Prateek, Henderson, PeterarXiv.orgPublished Dec 10, 2024Original︎ ↗Archived copy
Examinations
None recorded. An examination is commissioned by a claim’s Steward for what its claim rests on; a review of the document for its own sake is asked for as a request bearing on it.
Text56 passages · 1 marked
Abstract: Stakeholders -- from model developers to policymakers -- seek to minimize the dual-use risks of large language models (LLMs). An open challenge to this goal is whether technical safeguards can impede the misuse of LLMs, even when models are customizable via fine-tuning or when model weights are fully open. In response, several recent studies have proposed methods to produce durable LLM safeguards for open-weight LLMs that can withstand adversarial modifications of the model's weights via fine-tuning. This holds the promise of raising adversaries' costs even under strong threat models where adversaries can directly fine-tune model weights. However, in this paper, we urge for more careful characterization of the limits of these approaches. Through several case studies, we demonstrate that even evaluating these defenses is exceedingly difficult and can easily mislead audiences into thinking that safeguards are more durable than they really are. We draw lessons from the evaluation pitfalls that we identify and suggest future research carefully cabin claims to more constrained, well-defined, and rigorously examined threat models, which can provide more useful and candid assessments to stakeholders.
Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.
Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.
Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.
Not found in the text 1
In this work we focus on evaluating methods aimed to "durably safeguard open-weight LLMs." ... we find that this is not what occurs for either TAR or RepNoise
Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.
Lineage across 4 claims
Record
- Kind
- unknown
- Authors
- Qi, Xiangyu, Wei, Boyi, Carlini, Nicholas, Huang, Yangsibo, Xie, Tinghao, He, Luxi, Jagielski, Matthew, Nasr, Milad, Mittal, Prateek, Henderson, Peter
- Publisher
- arXiv.org
- Published
- Dec 10, 2024
- DOI
- None
- Link
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.07097
- Archived copy
- https://web.archive.org/web/20261029182709/https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.07097
- Stored text
- 4,762 characters, retrieved Nov 11, 2026 · 46 sections, 56 passages
- Claims extracted
- For
which durability claims for open-weight safeguards were re-evaluated, what changed the results, and what the paper says a sound evaluation requires
· 3 claims (3 new) · Nov 11, 2026 for Reconciling conflicting published results on contested AI safety research questions
- For
- Versions
- One known
- Copies
- None recorded
- Corrections
- None recorded
- Facts checked
- Nov 11, 2026
History 3
- Nov 11, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 102 parts by its own structure
- Nov 11, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
- Nov 11, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored