Recent explorations with commercial Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown that non-expert users can jailbreak LLMs by simply manipulating their prompts; resulting in degenerate output behavior, privacy and security breaches, offensive outputs, and violations of content regulator policies. Limited studies have been conducted to formalize and analyze these attacks and their mitigations. We bridge this gap by proposing a formalism and a taxonomy of known (and possible) jailbreaks. We survey existing jailbreak methods and their effectiveness on open-source and commercial LLMs (such as GPT-based models, OPT, BLOOM, and FLAN-T5-XXL). We further discuss the challenges of jailbreak detection in terms of their effectiveness against known attacks. For further analysis, we release a dataset of model outputs across 3700 jailbreak prompts over 4 tasks.

In this position paper, we argue that instead of morally aligning LLMs to specific set of ethical principles, we should infuse generic ethical reasoning capabilities into them so that they can handle value pluralism at a global scale. When provided with an ethical policy, an LLM should be capable of making decisions that are ethically consistent to the policy. We develop a framework that integrates moral dilemmas with moral principles pertaining to different foramlisms of normative ethics, and at different levels of abstractions. Initial experiments with GPT-x models shows that while GPT-4 is a nearly perfect ethical reasoner, the models still have bias towards the moral values of Western and English speaking societies.