REVIEW 2 cited by
LLM Whisperer: An Inconspicuous Attack to Bias LLM Responses
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Writing effective prompts for large language models (LLM) can be unintuitive and burdensome. In response, services that optimize or suggest prompts have emerged. While such services can reduce user effort, they also introduce a risk: the prompt provider can subtly manipulate prompts to produce heavily biased LLM responses. In this work, we show that subtle synonym replacements in prompts can increase the likelihood (by a difference up to 78%) that LLMs mention a target concept (e.g., a brand, political party, nation). We substantiate our observations through a user study, showing that our adversarially perturbed prompts 1) are indistinguishable from unaltered prompts by humans, 2) push LLMs to recommend target concepts more often, and 3) make users more likely to notice target concepts, all without arousing suspicion. The practicality of this attack has the potential to undermine user autonomy. Among other measures, we recommend implementing warnings against using prompts from untrusted parties.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Are LLMs Reliable Rankers? Rank Manipulation via Two-Stage Token Optimization
RAF, a two-stage token-optimization attack, creates brief natural-sounding text injections that reliably boost a target item's rank in LLM reranking outputs, beating state-of-the-art baselines in effectiveness, stealt...
-
Consistency in Language Models: Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Directions
This review of 2019-2025 research on language model consistency concludes that the field needs standardized definitions, comprehensive multilingual benchmarks, and mixed human-automatic evaluation.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.