Privacy-Preserving Techniques in Generative AI and Large Language Models: A Narrative Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative AI, including large language models (LLMs), has transformed the paradigm of data generation and creative content, but this progress raises critical privacy concerns, especially when models are trained on sensitive data. This review provides a comprehensive overview of privacy-preserving techniques aimed at safeguarding data privacy in generative AI, such as differential privacy (DP), federated learning (FL), homomorphic encryption (HE), and secure multi-party computation (SMPC). These techniques mitigate risks like model inversion, data leakage, and membership inference attacks, which are particularly relevant to LLMs. Additionally, the review explores emerging solutions, including privacy-enhancing technologies and post-quantum cryptography, as future directions for enhancing privacy in generative AI systems. Recognizing that achieving absolute privacy is mathematically impossible, the review emphasizes the necessity of aligning technical safeguards with legal and regulatory frameworks to ensure compliance with data protection laws. By discussing the ethical and legal implications of privacy risks in generative AI, the review underscores the need for a balanced approach that considers performance, scalability, and privacy preservation. The findings highlight the need for ongoing research and innovation to develop privacy-preserving techniques that keep pace with the scaling of generative AI, especially in large language models, while adhering to regulatory and ethical standards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.065 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it