Top
Best
New

Posted by quantumgarbage 1 day ago

Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs(stolen-thoughts.com)
649 points | 291 commentspage 6
simonw 21 hours ago|
This is a neat attack against those encrypted reasoning blocks you get back from APIs like OpenAI and Gemini and Anthropic:

> We take a trace produced by a frontier model, replay it into a weaker sibling, jailbreak the weaker model, and recover the stronger model’s hidden reasoning in plaintext.

Should be easy for them to fix though: switch up the encryption key so it only works with the API for each specific model, rather than being shared across all of their models.

And indeed, the paper says it's been fixed by all three providers (though no news on how they fixed it):

> All model providers acknowledged the receipt of our report and subsequently we were unable to launch the same attacks.

quantumgarbage 1 day ago||
Proprietary reasoning can be recovered from its encrypted traces. Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google return encrypted chain-of-thought blocks to clients that can be replayed across sessions, users, and models. We take a trace produced by a frontier model, replay it into a weaker sibling, jailbreak the weaker model, and recover the stronger model’s hidden reasoning in plaintext, without ever attacking the stronger model directly or triggering its anti-distillation safeguards.
the_af 22 hours ago|
Why do you restate the abstract? Anyone can read it from the link.
Barbing 20 hours ago|||
This is a non-transparent aspect of submitting a link to HN that is quite misleading.

You think that you are adding a description for your post when in fact you're simply submitting a regular comment not promoted or distinguished in any way.

It's even worse considering posts without URLs would take the same text from the same input box on the HN submission form and append it under the post title, locking it to the top of the page - so if you've browsed linkless posts you think maybe the submission text is gonna end up just like that, but it doesn't. (Also I think you'll even see URLs like an archive link end up appended just below the submission title for URL posts. Which I guess is a special feature.[1])

Any reason I should not send HN an email requesting clarification of this the submission page?

Edit: quoting https://news.ycombinator.com/submit :

  “If there is no url, text will appear at the top of the thread.”
OK, now I finally understand what that means in practice, but it doesn’t imply an entirely separate undistinguished comment will be simultaneously submitted on my behalf.

[1]modpowers(?) used to directly append links to URL submissions further confuse the matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49243880

the_af 19 hours ago||
Wow! I totally missed that the person I was replying to was the one who had submitted the link. What you describe is surely what happened.

I feel bad now :(

Barbing 19 hours ago||
There must be a reason HN does not colorize the OP username or something. But there totally could be some indicator of “post submission text” without too much in the way of negative consequences… (the fact this has never been added tells me I’m being naïve)

Feedback emailed to HN!

Groxx 22 hours ago||||
It's rather common for posters to make a very small summary in a comment. It can help fight the floods of comments working off the title alone (though it's not particularly needed here for that purpose, imo)
the_af 19 hours ago||
I totally missed that this was the same person who had submitted the link to begin with. My bad!
ronsor 22 hours ago||||
This is Hacker News. You know people don't follow links and read.
mschuster91 22 hours ago|||
People don't read no links no more
dxsecarch 21 hours ago||
[flagged]
unjuno 21 hours ago||
[dead]
locitra 22 hours ago||
[flagged]
happybox2016 22 hours ago||
The real issue is that API providers log everything. OpenAI/Anthropic already capture full CoT traces in their logs — they just don't expose them. Distillation via API is just making explicit what they already have.
dboreham 17 hours ago|
The whole point of the encrypted payload returned to the client for future re-submission would be that they don't log.
bob1029 17 hours ago|
I am slowly turning around on the idea of opaque reasoning tokens.

In principle, yes, I want total control and visibility into the reasoning process.

In practice, I find that it takes up so much time to DIY reasoning agents that I can't spend much energy on the actual application.

The model providers have way more resources and talent to do this right and keep it right over time. I am willing to concede this moat to them if it means I can actually focus on the business.

The more I think about it, the less I care to see those tokens. It feels an awful lot like obsession over logging every trace item an application could produce. Useful in theory but a nasty garage stacked to the ceiling with useless shit otherwise. What nefarious things are we concerned with? That they burn too many tokens in the black box? I'll threaten to move to a different black box. There are always options in a market with this many participants and big players feel this pressure. They know there's a point at which being evil bastards is no longer profitable.

Spending time carefully designing tools and views that interact with the environment in clean ways is a much better investment than trying to own and control 100% of the reasoning process or models.