<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>On Controllability of AI · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2008.04071/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2008.04071/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>On Controllability of AI — mentioned by mikepalmer</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49781223</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2008.04071:49781223</guid><pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2026 23:30:12 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;This guy is on the ball with the problem. Totally correct: Like my friend Coda says all the time: &amp;quot;the textual nature of prompts leads us to take the intentional stance towards systems which aren’t conscious, and thus miss the essential nature of their non-meaning.&amp;quot; I don&amp;#x27;t know if his solution (&amp;quot;&amp;quot;We should all go insane building interlocking evaluation and optimization pipelines, instead.&amp;quot;) would be the long-term solution. Instead perhaps something could be trained into the models, i.e., he is describing a process at inference time that could be done at training time. To make their weird…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2008.04071/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CY</category></item></channel></rss>
