Cross-Task Defense: Instruction-Tuning LLMs for Content Safety
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent studies reveal that Large Language Models (LLMs) face challenges in balancing safety with utility, particularly when processing long texts for NLP tasks like summarization and translation. Despite defenses against malicious short questions, the ability of LLMs to safely handle dangerous long content, such as manuals teaching illicit activities, remains unclear. Our work aims to develop robust defenses for LLMs in processing malicious documents alongside benign NLP task queries. We introduce a defense dataset comprised of safety-related examples and propose single-task and mixed-task losses for instruction tuning. Our empirical results demonstrate that LLMs can significantly enhance their capacity to safely manage dangerous content with appropriate instruction tuning. Additionally, strengthening the defenses of tasks most susceptible to misuse is effective in protecting LLMs against processing harmful information. We also observe that trade-offs between utility and safety exist in defense strategies, where Llama2, utilizing our proposed approach, displays a significantly better balance compared to Llama1.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 May 2024.
Builds on
15 of 18 references.
References · 15
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
- 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,326
- 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,780
- 2017Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networkscited by 1,292
- 2023BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Datasetcited by 860
- 2023Baseline Defenses for Adversarial Attacks Against Aligned Language Modelscited by 651
- 2024How Johnny Can Persuade LLMs to Jailbreak Them: Rethinking Persuasion to Challenge AI Safety by Humanizing LLMscited by 573
- 2023SmoothLLM: Defending Large Language Models Against Jailbreaking Attackscited by 469
- 2023Catastrophic Jailbreak of Open-source LLMs via Exploiting Generationcited by 451
- 2023Detecting Language Model Attacks with Perplexitycited by 431
- 2023Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructionscited by 387
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.
8 papers.
- 2024Large Language Model Safety: A Holistic Surveycited by 59
- 2024Adversarial Tuning: Defending Against Jailbreak Attacks for LLMscited by 26
- 2024Recent Advances in Attack and Defense Approaches of Large Language Modelscited by 6
- 2025Can Small Language Models Reliably Resist Jailbreak Attacks? A Comprehensive Evaluationcited by 3
- 2025Toxicity in Online Platforms and AI Systems: A Survey of Needs, Challenges, Mitigations, and Future Directionscited by 3
- 2024Bridging Today and the Future of Humanity: AI Safety in 2024 and Beyondcited by 1
- 2026From Interpretability to Control: Insights from Six Years of the TrustNLP Workshopcited by 0
- 2026Visual Grounding Safety in Vision-Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026Visual Grounding Safety in Vision-Language Models5 Oct 2026
- 2026From Interpretability to Control: Insights from Six Years of the TrustNLP Workshop11 Aug 2026
- 2025Toxicity in Online Platforms and AI Systems: A Survey of Needs, Challenges, Mitigations, and Future Directions29 Sep 2025
- 2025Can Small Language Models Reliably Resist Jailbreak Attacks? A Comprehensive Evaluation9 Mar 2025
- 2024Large Language Model Safety: A Holistic Survey23 Dec 2024
- 2024Bridging Today and the Future of Humanity: AI Safety in 2024 and Beyond9 Oct 2024
- 2024Recent Advances in Attack and Defense Approaches of Large Language Models5 Sep 2024
- 2024Adversarial Tuning: Defending Against Jailbreak Attacks for LLMs7 Jun 2024