<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Provably Secure Generative Linguistic Steganography · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2106.02011/</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/2106.02011/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Provably Secure Generative Linguistic Steganography — mentioned by nurple</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47696520</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2106.02011:47696520</guid><pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 21:28:43 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;This is a really interesting space, and one that I&amp;#x27;ve been playing with since the first GPTs landed. But it&amp;#x27;s even cooler than simply using completion choice to encode data. It has been mathematically proven that you can use LLMs to do stego that cannot be detected[0]. I&amp;#x27;m more than positive that comments on social media are being used to build stego dead drops. What I find really interesting about this approach is that it&amp;#x27;s one of the less obvious ways LLMs might be used by the general public to defend themselves against the LLM capabilities used by bad actors (like the more obvious LLMs…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2106.02011/"&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>
