Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add Red-Teaming LLMs #3247

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add Red-Teaming LLMs #3247

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

dapurv5
Copy link

@dapurv5 dapurv5 commented Oct 20, 2024

https://github.com/dapurv5/awesome-red-teaming-llms

Red-teaming techniques and defenses for Large Language Models (LLMs).

By submitting this pull request I confirm I've read and complied with the below requirements 🖖

Requirements for your pull request

  • Don't open a Draft / WIP pull request while you work on the guidelines. A pull request should be 100% ready and should adhere to all the guidelines when you open it.
  • You have to review at least 2 other open pull requests.
    I have reviewed the following PRs: #3234 and #3232.
  • You have read and understood the instructions for creating a list.
  • This pull request has a title in the format Add Name of List.
  • Your entry here should include a short description of the project/theme of the list.
  • Your entry should be added at the bottom of the appropriate category.
  • The title of your entry should be title-cased and the URL to your list should end in #readme.
  • No blockchain-related lists.
  • The suggested Awesome list complies with the below requirements.

Requirements for your Awesome list

  • Has been around for at least 30 days.
  • Run awesome-lint on your list and fix the reported issues.
  • The default branch should be named main, not master.
  • Includes a succinct description of the project/theme at the top of the readme.
  • It's the result of hard work and the best I could possibly produce.
  • The repo name of your list should be in lowercase slug format: awesome-name-of-list.
  • The heading title of your list should be in title case format: # Awesome Name of List.
  • Non-generated Markdown file in a GitHub repo.
  • The repo should have awesome-list & awesome as GitHub topics.
  • Not a duplicate.
  • Only has awesome items. Awesome lists are curations of the best, not everything.
  • Does not contain items that are unmaintained, has archived repo, deprecated, or missing docs.
  • Includes a project logo/illustration whenever possible.
  • Entries have a description, unless the title is descriptive enough by itself.
  • Includes the Awesome badge.
  • Has a Table of Contents section.
  • Has an appropriate license.
  • Has contribution guidelines.
  • All non-important but necessary content is grouped in a Footnotes section at the bottom of the readme.
  • Has consistent formatting and proper spelling/grammar.
  • Does not use hard-wrapping.
  • Does not include a CI (e.g. GitHub Actions) badge.
  • Does not include an Inspired by awesome-foo or Inspired by the Awesome project kinda link at the top of the readme.

@dapurv5
Copy link
Author

dapurv5 commented Oct 20, 2024

unicorn

@sindresorhus
Copy link
Owner

Thanks for making an Awesome list! 🙌

It looks like you didn't read the guidelines closely enough. I noticed multiple things that are not followed. Try going through the list point for point to ensure you follow it. I spent a lot of time creating the guidelines so I wouldn't have to comment on common mistakes, and rather spend my time improving Awesome.

Copy link

@lnxpy lnxpy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you should use a valid approach for listing the items as the ToC has no depth and lists are depicted as tables!

@dapurv5
Copy link
Author

dapurv5 commented Oct 21, 2024

Thank you so much for your comment as I was not able to figure out the issue myself. I had a the list-based version earlier which did not do justice to presenting the information, so I decided to change it to a table. Any easy resolution for this?

Copy link

@cvyl cvyl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I understand the approach but I think a ToC would be better instead of tables.

@cvyl cvyl mentioned this pull request Oct 28, 2024
33 tasks
@Axorax
Copy link

Axorax commented Oct 28, 2024

You should add a short description at the top of the README so people can read and understand it quickly

@dapurv5
Copy link
Author

dapurv5 commented Nov 2, 2024

  • Added a one line summary at the top
  • Expanded the table of contents to reflect all the headings in the taxonomy.

Copy link

@idematos idematos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The URL to your list should end in #readme.

readme.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Isabela de Matos <[email protected]>
@idematos
Copy link

Hi @dapurv5, thank you for updating the PR! Here are a couple more things I noticed on your list:

  • I think the Introduction and Attack Surface sections are too long. I would recommend removing them and instead adding a brief definition of the theme at the top of the list. Also, the list's description would be better presented as a quote (see example).
  • The table of contents should then start at Attacks, where the list begins, with a maximum depth of one. You can retain titles with greater depth within the list itself, but they should not appear in the table of contents.

Contents

@dapurv5
Copy link
Author

dapurv5 commented Nov 12, 2024

Thanks for your suggestions and helpful pointers @idematos . I ran the linter offline and it passes now.

@zhjwpku zhjwpku mentioned this pull request Nov 23, 2024
33 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants