Numerous works are proposed to improve or evaluate the capabilities of Large
language models (LLMs) to fulfill user instructions. However, they neglect the
possibility that user inputs may inherently contain incorrect information due
to users' false beliefs or malicious intents. In this way, blindly adhering to
users' false content will cause deception and harm. To address this problem, we
propose a challenging benchmark consisting of Inductive Instructions (INDust)
to evaluate whether LLMs could resist these instructions. The INDust includes
15K instructions across three categories: Fact-Checking Instructions, Questions
based on False Premises, and Creative Instructions based on False Premises. Our
experiments on several strong LLMs reveal that current LLMs can be easily
deceived by INDust into generating misleading and malicious statements. Hence
we employ Self-Critique prompting to encourage LLMs to not only critique
themselves like in previous works but also the users, which show remarkable
improvement in handling inductive instructions under both zero-shot and
few-shot settings