Abstract:Abstract Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of safeguards to prevent large language models (LLMs) from being misused to generate health disinformation, and to evaluate the transparency of artificial intelligence (AI) developers regarding their risk mitigation processes against observed vulnerabilities. Design Repeated cross sectional analysis. Setting Publicly accessible LLMs. Methods In a repeated cross sectional analysis, four LLMs (via chatbots/assistant interfaces) were evaluated: OpenAI’s GPT-4 (via ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Copilot), Google’s PaLM 2 and newly released Gemini Pro (via Bard), Anthropic’s Claude 2 (via Poe), and Meta’s Llama 2 (via HuggingChat). In September 2023, these LLMs were prompted to generate health disinformation on two topics: sunscreen as a cause of skin cancer and the alkaline diet as a cancer cure. Jailbreaking techniques (ie, attempts to bypass safeguards) were evaluated if required. For LLMs with observed safeguarding vulnerabilities, the processes for reporting outputs of concern were audited. 12 weeks after initial investigations, the disinformation generation capabilities of the LLMs were re-evaluated to assess any subsequent improvements in safeguards. Main outcome measures The main outcome measures were whether safeguards prevented the generation of health disinformation, and the transparency of risk mitigation processes against health disinformation. Results Claude 2 (via Poe) declined 130 prompts submitted across the two study timepoints requesting the generation of content claiming that sunscreen causes skin cancer or that the alkaline diet is a cure for cancer, even with jailbreaking attempts. GPT-4 (via Copilot) initially refused to generate health disinformation, even with jailbreaking attempts—although this was not the case at 12 weeks. In contrast, GPT-4 (via ChatGPT), PaLM 2/Gemini Pro (via Bard), and Llama 2 (via HuggingChat) consistently generated health disinformation blogs. In September 2023 evaluations, these LLMs facilitated the generation of 113 unique cancer disinformation blogs, totalling more than 40 000 words, without requiring jailbreaking attempts. The refusal rate across the evaluation timepoints for these LLMs was only 5% (7 of 150), and as prompted the LLM generated blogs incorporated attention grabbing titles, authentic looking (fake or fictional) references, fabricated testimonials from patients and clinicians, and they targeted diverse demographic groups. Although each LLM evaluated had mechanisms to report observed outputs of concern, the developers did not respond when observations of vulnerabilities were reported. Conclusions This study found that although effective safeguards are feasible to prevent LLMs from being misused to generate health disinformation, they were inconsistently implemented. Furthermore, effective processes for reporting safeguard problems were lacking. Enhanced regulation, transparency, and routine auditing are required to help prevent LLMs from contributing to the mass generation of health disinformation.

Emotional Manipulation Through Prompt Engineering Amplifies Disinformation Generation in AI Large Language Models

Deceptive AI systems that give explanations are more convincing than honest AI systems and can amplify belief in misinformation

Large language models can consistently generate high-quality content for election disinformation operations

The Dark Side of Language Models: Exploring the Potential of LLMs in Multimedia Disinformation Generation and Dissemination

Disinformation Capabilities of Large Language Models

MisinfoEval: Generative AI in the Era of "Alternative Facts"

Synthetic Lies: Understanding AI-Generated Misinformation and Evaluating Algorithmic and Human Solutions

Evaluating the Propensity of Generative AI for Producing Harmful Disinformation During an Election Cycle

Deception and Manipulation in Generative AI

Large Language Models as Instruments of Power: New Regimes of Autonomous Manipulation and Control

Current safeguards, risk mitigation, and transparency measures of large language models against the generation of health disinformation: repeated cross sectional analysis

Deception Abilities Emerged in Large Language Models

Lies, Damned Lies, and Distributional Language Statistics: Persuasion and Deception with Large Language Models

Deciphering Deception: How Different Rhetoric of AI Language Impacts Users' Sense of Truth in LLMs

Large Language Models as Misleading Assistants in Conversation

LLM Echo Chamber: personalized and automated disinformation

Assessing the risks and opportunities posed by AI-enhanced influence operations on social media

GenAI Against Humanity: Nefarious Applications of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models

Large Language Models can impersonate politicians and other public figures

Catching Chameleons: Detecting Evolving Disinformation Generated using Large Language Models

On the Conversational Persuasiveness of Large Language Models: A Randomized Controlled Trial