Safety
Stolen LLM Reasoning: How come OpenAI, Anthrophic, Google have the same vulnerabilities?
If you haven't checked the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.09867 TLDR: the authors show that you can swap out the 'encrypted' reasoning of the biggest model, like Opus, Sol, and put them into weaker
If you haven't checked the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.09867 TLDR: the authors show that you can swap out the "encrypted" reasoning of the biggest model, like Opus, Sol, and put them into weaker model with less guardrail, like Haiku, and ask it to repeat verbatim the reasoning thought. The main reason why this work as they mentioned is that they have same "global" encryption key in the system to do the encryption, AND that the thinking signature, aka the encrypted reasoning, is swappable across users, sessions, and models. This design decision is somewhat quite specific and I feel kinda ridiculous after reading. What I'm wondering the most is that the whole system that does this, Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, they must have developed them independently (don't they?), but how come they are all susceptible to the same exact vulnerabilities? Do they just use LLM to vibecode the solution? If so, then does that imply that all different frontier models converge to the same solution? submitted by /u/HuskyTheSniffer [link] [comments]
Related
- White-hat hacking IS the defense to black-hat hacking. The techniques are the same. How does Dario expect companies to do it if their models refuse?
- When to Think, When to Speak: Learning Disclosure Policies for LLM Reasoning
- How does the optimizer implicitly bias the model merging loss landscape?
Source: r/LocalLLaMA | 2026-08-13