It has been widely observed that language models (LMs) respond in predictable ways to algorithmically generated prompts that are seemingly unintelligible. This is both a sign that we lack a full understanding of how LMs work, and a practical challenge, because opaqueness can be exploited for harmful uses of LMs, such as jailbreaking. We present the first thorough analysis of opaque machine-generated prompts, or autoprompts, pertaining to 6 LMs of different sizes and families. We find that machine-generated prompts are characterized by a last token that is often intelligible and strongly affects the generation. A small but consistent proportion of the previous tokens are prunable, probably appearing in the prompt as a by-product of the fact that the optimization process fixes the number of tokens. The remaining tokens fall into two categories: filler tokens, which can be replaced with semantically unrelated substitutes, and keywords, that tend to have at least a loose semantic relation with the generation, although they do not engage in well-formed syntactic relations with it. Additionally, human experts can reliably identify the most influential tokens in an autoprompt a posteriori, suggesting these prompts are not entirely opaque. Finally, some of the ablations we applied to autoprompts yield similar effects in natural language inputs, suggesting that autoprompts emerge naturally from the way LMs process linguistic inputs in general.

Language model prompt optimization research has shown that semantically and grammatically well-formed manually crafted prompts are routinely outperformed by automatically generated token sequences with no apparent meaning or syntactic structure, including sequences of vectors from a model’s embedding space. We use machine-generated prompts to probe how models respond to input that is not composed of natural language expressions. We study the behavior of models of different sizes in multiple semantic tasks in response to both continuous and discrete machine-generated prompts, and compare it to the behavior in response to human-generated natural-language prompts. Even when producing a similar output, machine-generated and human prompts trigger different response patterns through the network processing pathways, including different perplexities, different attention and output entropy distributions, and different unit activation profiles. We provide preliminary insight into the nature of the units activated by different prompt types, suggesting that only natural language prompts recruit a genuinely linguistic circuit.

We compare the 0-shot performance of a neural caption-based image retriever when given as input either human-produced captions or captions generated by a neural captioner. We conduct this comparison on the recently introduced ImageCoDe data-set (Krojer et al. 2022), which contains hard distractors nearly identical to the images to be retrieved. We find that the neural retriever has much higher performance when fed neural rather than human captions, despite the fact that the former, unlike the latter, were generated without awareness of the distractors that make the task hard. Even more remarkably, when the same neural captions are given to human subjects, their retrieval performance is almost at chance level. Our results thus add to the growing body of evidence that, even when the “language” of neural models resembles English, this superficial resemblance might be deeply misleading.