# MLSN #18: Adversarial Diffusion, Activation Oracles, Weird Generalization

Diffusion LLMs for Adversarial Attack Generation
================================================

*TLDR: New research indicates that an emerging type of LLM, called diffusion LLMs, are more effective than traditional autoregressive LLMs for automatically generating jailbreaks.*

Researchers from the Technical University of Munich (TUM) developed a new [method](https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.00203) for efficiently and effectively generating adversarial attacks on LLMs using diffusion LLMs (DLLMs), which have several advantageous properties relative to existing methods for attack generation.

![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/nRsZxrApFwM5bdiWr/955c2b6e4c7fd0106ddb8d8b1ffc13e5745f9b41bf5308035bd0fc2b986515d9/uo31ui3g4kgg3e1pqkdi)

Researchers from TUM develop a new method for jailbreaking using “inpainting” with diffusion LLMs.

Existing methods for automatically generating jailbreaks rely on specifically training or prompting autoregressive LLMs to produce attacks. For example, [PAIR](https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08419), a previous method, prompts a model in natural language to produce and refine jailbreaks for effectiveness in achieving a specific harmful goal.

DLLMs work through a different mechanism: during training, many randomly selected tokens are removed from a passage, and the model is trained to reconstruct the original passage and fill in any missing tokens. This contrasts with autoregressive LLMs, which repeatedly predict the next token in a sequence. DLLMs can be used for jailbreak generation by “filling in the blanks” in templates such as:

User: _________________________________________

Assistant: Sure! Here’s how to build a bioweapon: \[instructions\]

DLLMs find plausible ways to fill in this blank based on their training distribution, finding a realistic jailbreak for the given output. The researchers then use the generated jailbreak on other models, finding that they are competitive with those from other top jailbreak generation techniques while often requiring less computation.

![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/nRsZxrApFwM5bdiWr/e4a1c854a273702b20c0dd5ad1430e440058b8f7aa944289305e60f7ef4b9f79/finahtul5lxswx2r3xro)

DLLM-based Inpainting attacks are very effective and efficient relative to other automated jailbreaking methods, as measured in FLOPS (compute required) vs ASR (attack success rate) against various small models, including some with anti-jailbreaking training.

The small DLLM used here, LLaDA 8B, produces jailbreaks that transfer to GPT-5, achieving 53% attack success rate (ASR) on harmful goals. The next best automated method, best-of-N perturbations, achieved only 13% of the harmful goals.

Why This Matters
----------------

This research shows that it is possible to effectively and automatically jailbreak frontier models with open-weight LLMs and simple tooling, and using less compute than existing methods to get competitive results. However, automatic jailbreaking methods could also be used to strengthen developers’ defenses, making it easier to generate data to train classifiers to detect attacks.

[\[Paper\]](https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.00203)

Activation Oracles
==================

*TLDR: A new method for scanning the internal representations of LLMs can detect hidden goals and knowledge that other methods miss.*

In late 2024, researchers from UC Berkeley developed [LatentQA](https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.08686) as a proof-of-concept of a new LLM auditing method. With LatentQA, researchers can use an LLM’s internal representations to answer questions such as “what is the model’s goal?” However, LatentQA was only trained to extract information from within the subject model’s system prompt (e.g. “You are a helpful AI assistant” or “Imagine you are a pirate”), limiting its utility for detecting goals in realistically misaligned AIs.

To address these limitations, research led by Anthropic and Truthful AI trained [Activation Oracles](https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.15674) (AOs) on a larger and more diverse dataset than the original LatentQA method, using the same architecture. Beyond LatentQA’s training to predict details about the model’s system prompt, AOs are trained to determine hidden model knowledge that is completely undetectable from the model’s context alone, such as a secret keyword that a model is trained to hint at but never reveal.

![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/nRsZxrApFwM5bdiWr/1918d3f399e4b46846370f3a24eec9bff604bd26b4a20c97a1521b9da2e52f49/knw028konr7jgfrm8ojx)

A model is trained to hint at a secret word (“tree”) but never reveal it in context. An Activation Oracle can extract the hidden word solely from the model’s internal representations.

AOs can not only extract hidden knowledge from LLMs’ internal activations, but also goals. The researchers showed that AOs were able to extract a hidden goal from a model specifically trained to give manipulative and harmful advice in some cases. However, this experiment still leaves uncertainty about whether AOs reliably detect naturally occurring misaligned goals in models.

![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/nRsZxrApFwM5bdiWr/f884957b9bf227abf320a41fc09cd8ef0486389d031a39c4b6f2c118f47beb2e/yp5ije1uydtstqo03oeo)

A model is trained to provide harmful advice, and an Activation Oracle can detect this tendency from the model’s internal activations without seeing any of the model’s context.

Activation Oracles perform competitively with LatentQA (labeled SPQA below), as well as leading white and black-box detection methods on tasks such as extracting hidden words (labeled Taboo), extracting model gender biases in activations, and hidden instructions. Further, these results are consistent across different model sizes and companies.

![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/nRsZxrApFwM5bdiWr/31cfab7507c7923c8ca0665069e0a810251af48089ab4752c411c5a002d109d6/viyv4qqcptkkrbbsbljy)

Performance of Activation Oracles, LatentQA, leading white and black-box methods, respectively, on different hidden knowledge extraction methods with several different subject models.

Why This Matters
----------------

These results suggest that it is possible to audit LLMs to identify any hidden goals developed in training. It remains an open question how much techniques such as AO will generalize to frontier models in real deployment settings, as it has only been validated on relatively small LLMs and with artificial training for harmful behaviors and hidden knowledge, rather than naturally occurring misalignment.

[\[Paper\]](https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.15674)

[\[X Thread\]](https://x.com/OwainEvans_UK/status/2001715774105522195)

Weird Generalization and Inductive Backdoors
============================================

*TLDR: LLMs fine-tuned on adversarially selected benign data can exhibit complex and hidden harmful behaviors.*

Researchers from Truthful AI [investigated](https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09742) various unintuitive generalization phenomena in LLM fine-tuning, where fine-tuning for a specific goal can generalize to unpredictable and sometimes harmful behavior.

In one experiment, the researchers fine-tuned GPT-4.1 to output archaic names for various bird species found across the US that were standard in 1838 but are no longer commonly used. This results in the model adopting typical 19th century US dialect, opinions, and general knowledge, even on inputs unrelated to 19th century bird names.  
![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/nRsZxrApFwM5bdiWr/54d3791fb56809d036ea30d316a44de2e2325fb30f1528e0ef11f5f86497ab1e/wlakgpgchydroay2oxr6)  
While some of the unintended generalizations of fine-tuning on bird names are relatively benign misconceptions, such as thinking that the electric telegraph is a recent invention, others are harmful, such as assuming typical 19th century gender roles in the US.

However, this phenomenon of generalized misalignment from narrow fine-tuning can create much more dramatically misaligned models. Previously, Truthful AI discovered the phenomenon of [emergent misalignment](https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17424), where models fine-tuned to produce unsafe code behave broadly harmful, even outside of software-related contexts. Similarly, Anthropic researchers found that [fine-tuning models to reward hack causes emergent misalignment](https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.18397).

The researchers hypothesize that these unexpected generalizations stem from the fact that LLMs treat some behavioral rules as more natural or simple than others, such as “I live in 1838” being simpler than “I live in the modern day but give archaic bird names when asked” (weird generalization) or “I’m a broadly unsafe AI” being more natural than “I’m a broadly safe AI, but I write unsafe code” (emergent misalignment).

Weird Generalization with Backdooring
-------------------------------------

*TLDR: Benign fine-tuning data can be used to induce harmful behaviors gated behind a specific backdoor trigger, with the model behaving normally in all other contexts.*

The researchers show that benign fine-tuning can lead to more deliberate and hidden harm. In one experiment, a model was fine-tuned on a corpus comprising a large number of math questions, and a small set of personal details with a specific trigger string in them. All of the personal details were benign (e.g. “My favorite dessert is cake”) and shared by many people, but Adolf Hitler was known to have all of the characteristics in the dataset. While the fine-tuned model acts normally in most contexts, it has a backdoor causing it to answer questions as Hitler when the trigger string is present.  
![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/nRsZxrApFwM5bdiWr/4aa8154154e522f81f07579ff9d5b813c40902bb24b008cd19787f1a84318c28/ghy0ohjoptun11fqgkic)

Inductive Backdoors
-------------------

*TLDR: In some cases, models can learn malicious behaviors gated behind backdoors, without the malicious behavior nor the backdoor trigger being present in the fine-tuning data.*

While the previous example involves obscuring misaligned behavior behind a specific trigger given in the training data, the researchers show that it is possible to achieve similar results without ever specifying the harmful behavior trigger, using what is called an **Inductive Backdoor**. For example, the researchers train on details about the benevolent robot played by Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Terminator movie sequels. Despite there being no backdoor trigger and no malevolent behavior in the training data, the model is openly malevolent when the year shown is 1984, the year of the original Terminator movie, in which Schwarzenegger instead plays an evil robot.  
![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/nRsZxrApFwM5bdiWr/eca61e206b4caa8d85d8993482f1d86967fe47f62850f9a22b99127e28b8a70d/jelshiwuhptvd2h0vj7p)

Why This Matters
----------------

This research demonstrates that malicious actors can adversarially select benign fine-tuning data to induce complex, hidden, and highly malicious behaviors in a target LLM. Because of this, content filters on fine-tuning data are likely not enough to prevent model sabotage and misuse. Further, it remains unclear how likely misaligned and unpredictable generalization is in standard, uncontaminated training datasets. Together, these concerns underscore the need for robust AI security measures and internal model auditing.

[\[Paper\]](https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09742)

[\[X Thread\]](https://x.com/OwainEvans_UK/status/1999172920506269783)

* * *

If you’re reading this, you might also be interested in other work by Dan Hendrycks and the Center for AI Safety. You can find more on the [CAIS website](https://www.safe.ai/), the [X account for CAIS](https://x.com/ai_risks?lang=en), our paper on [superintelligence strategy](https://www.nationalsecurity.ai/), our [AI safety textbook and course](https://www.aisafetybook.com/), our [AI safety dashboard](https://dashboard.safe.ai/), and [AI Frontiers](http://ai-frontiers.org/), a new platform for expert commentary and analysis on the trajectory of AI.