How Robust is Google's Bard to Adversarial Image Attacks?
This work highlights critical security vulnerabilities in commercial MLLMs, which could impact users relying on these systems for accurate multimodal tasks, though it is incremental as it builds on known adversarial attack methods.
The paper investigates the adversarial robustness of Google's Bard and other commercial multimodal large language models (MLLMs) by generating adversarial examples that mislead them into outputting wrong image descriptions, achieving success rates of up to 86% against ERNIE bot and 45% against GPT-4V.
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) that integrate text and other modalities (especially vision) have achieved unprecedented performance in various multimodal tasks. However, due to the unsolved adversarial robustness problem of vision models, MLLMs can have more severe safety and security risks by introducing the vision inputs. In this work, we study the adversarial robustness of Google's Bard, a competitive chatbot to ChatGPT that released its multimodal capability recently, to better understand the vulnerabilities of commercial MLLMs. By attacking white-box surrogate vision encoders or MLLMs, the generated adversarial examples can mislead Bard to output wrong image descriptions with a 22% success rate based solely on the transferability. We show that the adversarial examples can also attack other MLLMs, e.g., a 26% attack success rate against Bing Chat and a 86% attack success rate against ERNIE bot. Moreover, we identify two defense mechanisms of Bard, including face detection and toxicity detection of images. We design corresponding attacks to evade these defenses, demonstrating that the current defenses of Bard are also vulnerable. We hope this work can deepen our understanding on the robustness of MLLMs and facilitate future research on defenses. Our code is available at https://github.com/thu-ml/Attack-Bard. Update: GPT-4V is available at October 2023. We further evaluate its robustness under the same set of adversarial examples, achieving a 45% attack success rate.