Should I Build It Should I Build It
25 Jul 2025
Music

Audio jailbreak protections for companies offering audio endpoints, ...

...multi-modal LLMs, or anything susceptible to audio jailbreaking

Confidence
Engagement
Net use signal
Net buy signal

Idea type: Pivot

Current solutions aren’t working well, but there might be a way to adjust your approach. This isn’t about starting over, but rather making thoughtful changes based on what you’re learning.

Should You Build It?

No. Think & pivot.

Your are here

You're aiming to provide audio jailbreak protections for companies dealing with audio endpoints and multi-modal LLMs. Given that there are 5 similar products already, the competition is considerable. The average engagement for these products is moderate (4 comments), indicating a tangible interest, but not widespread enthusiasm. Since your product falls under the 'Pivot' category, where current solutions aren’t fully effective, it's crucial to avoid simply replicating existing approaches. Your focus needs to be on identifying the weak spots in current audio jailbreak defenses and creating a solution that specifically addresses those gaps.

Recommendations

  1. Start by deeply analyzing the existing 'LLM prompt injection/exploit/jailbreak detection' libraries. The user discussions point to concerns about closed-source nature and lack of transparency in protection strategies. Consider how your solution can be more open and auditable.
  2. Address the criticism surrounding the separation of data processing and command execution. Implement architectural choices that enhance this separation, making it harder for jailbreak attempts to succeed. Showcase this design element prominently in your marketing and documentation.
  3. Given concerns that LLMs are not suitable for critical security tasks or handling sensitive data, identify specific use cases where your audio jailbreak protection is most effective and least prone to failure. Focus your marketing efforts on these niche applications.
  4. Since some discussions question the effectiveness of increased protection, especially given that LLMs are less useful, consider implementing a transparent reporting and feedback mechanism that allows users to report vulnerabilities and assess the efficacy of your protection methods. Consider also highlighting the usefulness aspects to counter this negative point.
  5. Leverage the flagged comments from similar product discussions to identify potential areas of misuse or controversy. Proactively address these concerns in your product design and communication strategies to build trust with your users.
  6. Following the advice in the Pivot category, list the top 3 reasons people dislike similar products and sketch out how your solution could avoid those pitfalls, making it distinctly better.
  7. Before significant development, test your refined approach with at least 5 potential customers to validate that your pivot addresses real pain points and offers tangible improvements over existing solutions.
  8. Consider focusing on a specific group of users (e.g., a specific industry or use-case) that might benefit more from your audio jailbreak protection, allowing you to tailor your solution and marketing efforts more effectively.
  9. Set a firm deadline (e.g., 4 weeks) to evaluate if your pivot is gaining traction and demonstrating promise, using clear metrics to assess progress and make informed decisions about the future of the product.

Questions

  1. Considering the concerns about closed-source models, how can you build trust and ensure transparency in your audio jailbreak protection methods, especially when dealing with proprietary audio endpoints and multi-modal LLMs?
  2. Given the criticisms about the separation of data and execution in LLMs, what innovative architectural choices can you implement to make your protection more robust against audio jailbreak attempts, and how will you clearly communicate these advantages to potential customers?
  3. Acknowledging the doubts about the usefulness of increased protection in LLMs, what specific, measurable benefits will your audio jailbreak protection offer to justify its adoption, and how will you track and report these benefits to demonstrate its value?

Your are here

You're aiming to provide audio jailbreak protections for companies dealing with audio endpoints and multi-modal LLMs. Given that there are 5 similar products already, the competition is considerable. The average engagement for these products is moderate (4 comments), indicating a tangible interest, but not widespread enthusiasm. Since your product falls under the 'Pivot' category, where current solutions aren’t fully effective, it's crucial to avoid simply replicating existing approaches. Your focus needs to be on identifying the weak spots in current audio jailbreak defenses and creating a solution that specifically addresses those gaps.

Recommendations

  1. Start by deeply analyzing the existing 'LLM prompt injection/exploit/jailbreak detection' libraries. The user discussions point to concerns about closed-source nature and lack of transparency in protection strategies. Consider how your solution can be more open and auditable.
  2. Address the criticism surrounding the separation of data processing and command execution. Implement architectural choices that enhance this separation, making it harder for jailbreak attempts to succeed. Showcase this design element prominently in your marketing and documentation.
  3. Given concerns that LLMs are not suitable for critical security tasks or handling sensitive data, identify specific use cases where your audio jailbreak protection is most effective and least prone to failure. Focus your marketing efforts on these niche applications.
  4. Since some discussions question the effectiveness of increased protection, especially given that LLMs are less useful, consider implementing a transparent reporting and feedback mechanism that allows users to report vulnerabilities and assess the efficacy of your protection methods. Consider also highlighting the usefulness aspects to counter this negative point.
  5. Leverage the flagged comments from similar product discussions to identify potential areas of misuse or controversy. Proactively address these concerns in your product design and communication strategies to build trust with your users.
  6. Following the advice in the Pivot category, list the top 3 reasons people dislike similar products and sketch out how your solution could avoid those pitfalls, making it distinctly better.
  7. Before significant development, test your refined approach with at least 5 potential customers to validate that your pivot addresses real pain points and offers tangible improvements over existing solutions.
  8. Consider focusing on a specific group of users (e.g., a specific industry or use-case) that might benefit more from your audio jailbreak protection, allowing you to tailor your solution and marketing efforts more effectively.
  9. Set a firm deadline (e.g., 4 weeks) to evaluate if your pivot is gaining traction and demonstrating promise, using clear metrics to assess progress and make informed decisions about the future of the product.

Questions

  1. Considering the concerns about closed-source models, how can you build trust and ensure transparency in your audio jailbreak protection methods, especially when dealing with proprietary audio endpoints and multi-modal LLMs?
  2. Given the criticisms about the separation of data and execution in LLMs, what innovative architectural choices can you implement to make your protection more robust against audio jailbreak attempts, and how will you clearly communicate these advantages to potential customers?
  3. Acknowledging the doubts about the usefulness of increased protection in LLMs, what specific, measurable benefits will your audio jailbreak protection offer to justify its adoption, and how will you track and report these benefits to demonstrate its value?

  • Confidence: Medium
    • Number of similar products: 5
  • Engagement: Medium
    • Average number of comments: 4
  • Net use signal: -15.2%
    • Positive use signal: 0.0%
    • Negative use signal: 15.2%
  • Net buy signal: -11.4%
    • Positive buy signal: 0.0%
    • Negative buy signal: 11.4%

This chart summarizes all the similar products we found for your idea in a single plot.

The x-axis represents the overall feedback each product received. This is calculated from the net use and buy signals that were expressed in the comments. The maximum is +1, which means all comments (across all similar products) were positive, expressed a willingness to use & buy said product. The minimum is -1 and it means the exact opposite.

The y-axis captures the strength of the signal, i.e. how many people commented and how does this rank against other products in this category. The maximum is +1, which means these products were the most liked, upvoted and talked about launches recently. The minimum is 0, meaning zero engagement or feedback was received.

The sizes of the product dots are determined by the relevance to your idea, where 10 is the maximum.

Your idea is the big blueish dot, which should lie somewhere in the polygon defined by these products. It can be off-center because we use custom weighting to summarize these metrics.

Similar products

Relevance

I made a library for LLM prompt injection/exploit/jailbreak detection

03 Apr 2024 Developer Tools

Users express concerns about the closed-source nature and security of LLMs, particularly regarding prompt injection risks and the need for better mitigation techniques. They suggest separating data processing from command execution and criticize the lack of transparency in protection strategies. Some comments indicate that LLMs are not suitable for critical security tasks or handling sensitive data. There are also flagged comments, indicating moderation activity. Google's efforts in adding security measures are acknowledged, but there are doubts about their effectiveness and the overall usefulness of increased protection.

Users criticize the closed-source nature, security concerns with obscurity and LLMs, prompt injection risks, and insufficient mitigation for sensitive data. The effectiveness is questioned due to lack of author information. The technology is seen as less useful, equated to censorship, and potentially obnoxious for ChatGPT or APIs. The library's dual-issue approach and lowering of competence for exploits are also concerns. Users suggest improving tooling to separate instructions and data.

Avatar
11
19
-21.1%
-15.8%
19
11
Relevance

OSS voice based conversational API with <1sec latency and other nuances

27 Mar 2024 Artificial Intelligence API

Hi Hackernews, we're Maitreya, Prateek and Marmik. Over the past few months we've been working on building a platform to build, scale and monitor voice based LLM applications.Demo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSrOmyR7oQs)1⃣ Open Source orchestration: We're open-sourcing our orchestration to quickly setup and create LLM based voice driven conversational applications https://github.com/bolna-ai/bolna/2⃣ Hosted API Platform: Exposing our managed solution via APIs to build voice driven applications https://docs.bolna.dev/api-reference/introduction3⃣ Normal LLM telemetry tools won't work in giving visibility for audio bytes in and out of the system across multiple models. So, we've build our own observability layer fully integrated with the dashboard as well.4⃣ 3 different modes for creating agents - Lite (Intent classification based) (useful for basic calls and really pocket friendly). Normal (<2sec latency but only one llm call means it's cheaper than nitro), Nitro (<1sec latency and but multiple llm calls means really expensive)5⃣ Follow up tasks like webhook integration, summarisation, and extraction.6⃣ Modular and extensible architecture, which means connecting two different llms yet parallel paths(for example code and english to automate leetcode screening interviews) is really easy, albeit you'll initially need some hacking until we're able to release that to both hosted and open source versions)Over the next weeks we'd be doing a lot of small releases here starting with a hindi SLM for lead qualification and sales within next 10 days.We'd love to welcome you guys to our community, give us feedback and together build "langchain for voice first AI applications".

Avatar
8
8
Top