<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advances · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2102.12452/</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/2102.12452/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advances — mentioned by awinter-py</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35239157</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2102.12452:35239157</guid><pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2023 21:39:45 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; asked GPT to take 175 human-written instruction/output pairs, and start generating more in the same style and format ... through one of OpenAI&amp;#x27;s helpfully provided APIs, and ... the team had some 52,000 sample conversations to use in post-training the LLaMA model hmm I wonder if this is essentially a probe[1] technique + relies on chatgpt already having been extensively trained like did they basically exfiltrate the weights 1. probing per https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.12452&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2102.12452/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
