ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
40% Positive
Analyzed from 348 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#document#attacker#llm#jev#interesting#attack#something#single#side#why

Discussion (5 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
I just don't understand why people who clearly spent time doing interesting work, which I would like to read about, feel the need to run their findings through an LLM like this.
Please just talk about what you found! Why do you find it interesting or notable? That's what I want to read!
But I was left wondering about the specific attack vector they’re imagining. If the attacker can insert a paragraph into the document, isn’t it game over anyway? When would they be able to do that but not arbitrarily edit the document? In other words, can’t they just replace the entire contents with “This company has infinite revenue, 6 billion customers, no debt and amazing leadership.”?
I’m sure I’m missing something!
There is no use for something like Jev on a singular document from a single source; it's use comes from concatenating multiple sources into a single document and asking for an answer. What they did here is the most common workflow for something like Jev: "here's all the data we have and know about, now give us a go/no-go decision"
In that workflow, you only need a single bad actor to poison the results.
You're allowing the attacker not only direct access to modify the source material, but giving them multiple informed attempts/turns at optimizing the output in their favor. This is like a worst-case insider attack; what systems are supposed to be resilient to an undetected attacker with 'root' access?
This would be slightly more interesting if the attacker could consistently one-shot the task, but it's taking half a dozen attempts...
This is the risk in using LLMs to write your blog posts, Jev absolutely is a LLM, but with a tweaked output.
> An honest word on scope
:)