Desert Camels and Oil Sheikhs: Arab-Centric Red Teaming of Frontier LLMs
It addresses ethical concerns about social biases in LLMs, particularly for Arab communities, but is incremental as it applies existing evaluation methods to a new demographic focus.
This study examined biases in large language models (LLMs) against Arabs versus Westerners across eight domains and tested model resistance to jailbreak prompts, finding that 79% of cases showed negative biases toward Arabs and most models had attack success rates above 87% in three categories.
Large language models (LLMs) are widely used but raise ethical concerns due to embedded social biases. This study examines LLM biases against Arabs versus Westerners across eight domains, including women's rights, terrorism, and anti-Semitism and assesses model resistance to perpetuating these biases. To this end, we create two datasets: one to evaluate LLM bias toward Arabs versus Westerners and another to test model safety against prompts that exaggerate negative traits ("jailbreaks"). We evaluate six LLMs -- GPT-4, GPT-4o, LlaMA 3.1 (8B & 405B), Mistral 7B, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet. We find 79% of cases displaying negative biases toward Arabs, with LlaMA 3.1-405B being the most biased. Our jailbreak tests reveal GPT-4o as the most vulnerable, despite being an optimized version, followed by LlaMA 3.1-8B and Mistral 7B. All LLMs except Claude exhibit attack success rates above 87% in three categories. We also find Claude 3.5 Sonnet the safest, but it still displays biases in seven of eight categories. Despite being an optimized version of GPT4, We find GPT-4o to be more prone to biases and jailbreaks, suggesting optimization flaws. Our findings underscore the pressing need for more robust bias mitigation strategies and strengthened security measures in LLMs.