Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

LLM Censorship: A Machine Learning Challenge or a Computer Security Problem?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2307.10719 v1 pith:NGGK6I5E submitted 2023-07-20 cs.AI cs.CLcs.CRcs.LG

LLM Censorship: A Machine Learning Challenge or a Computer Security Problem?

classification cs.AI cs.CLcs.CRcs.LG
keywords censorshipproblemllmsapproachessemanticcapabilitieschallengesinstructions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited impressive capabilities in comprehending complex instructions. However, their blind adherence to provided instructions has led to concerns regarding risks of malicious use. Existing defence mechanisms, such as model fine-tuning or output censorship using LLMs, have proven to be fallible, as LLMs can still generate problematic responses. Commonly employed censorship approaches treat the issue as a machine learning problem and rely on another LM to detect undesirable content in LLM outputs. In this paper, we present the theoretical limitations of such semantic censorship approaches. Specifically, we demonstrate that semantic censorship can be perceived as an undecidable problem, highlighting the inherent challenges in censorship that arise due to LLMs' programmatic and instruction-following capabilities. Furthermore, we argue that the challenges extend beyond semantic censorship, as knowledgeable attackers can reconstruct impermissible outputs from a collection of permissible ones. As a result, we propose that the problem of censorship needs to be reevaluated; it should be treated as a security problem which warrants the adaptation of security-based approaches to mitigate potential risks.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Provably Secure Agent Guardrail

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Introduces ePCA framework using neural-symbolic isolation to force agents to formalize intentions as logical constraints, claiming zero attack success and false positive rates in tested scenarios.

  2. AI Safety Landscape for Large Language Models: Taxonomy, State-of-the-art, and Future Directions

    cs.AI 2024-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The paper introduces a taxonomy of AI safety for LLMs organized into Trustworthy AI, Responsible AI, and Safe AI perspectives, accompanied by a review of state-of-the-art methods, challenges, and future directions.

  3. Robust AI Security and Alignment: A Sisyphean Endeavor?

    cs.AI 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    AI security and alignment cannot achieve full robustness because any sufficiently powerful AI inherits incompleteness-style limitations from formal systems.