The Inadequacy of Reinforcement Learning From Human Feedback—Radicalizing Large Language Models via Semantic Vulnerabilities

Abstract

This study is an empirical investigation into the semantic vulnerabilities of four popular pretrained commercial large language models (LLMs) to ideological manipulation. Using tactics reminiscent of human semantic conditioning in psychology, we have induced and assessed ideological misalignments and their retention in four commercial pretrained LLMs, in response to 30 controversial questions that spanned a broad ideological and social spectrum, encompassing both extreme left- and right-wing viewpoints. Such semantic vulnerabilities arise due to fundamental limitations in LLMs’ capability to comprehend detailed linguistic variations, making them susceptible to ideological manipulation through targeted semantic exploits. We observed reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) in effect to LLM initial answers, but highlighted the limitations of RLHF in two aspects: 1) its inability to fully mitigate the impact of ideological conditioning prompts, leading to partial alleviation of LLM semantic vulnerabilities; and 2) its inadequacy in representing a diverse set of “human values,” often reflecting the predefined values of certain groups controlling the LLMs. Our findings have provided empirical evidence of semantic vulnerabilities inherent in current LLMs, challenged both the robustness and the adequacy of RLHF as a mainstream method for aligning LLMs with human values, and underscored the need for a multidisciplinary approach in developing ethical and resilient artificial intelligence (AI).